LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

CALIFORNIA 

SAN  oiceo 


TC 
6  **" 
I*- 
f? 

G/C 


Cljicago  Jptetortcal 


COLLECTION 


Vol.  X. 


Illinois  Centennial  Publication 


CHICAGO   HISTORICAL  SOCIETY'S   COLLECTION,  VOL.  X. 

THE  ILLINOIS  AND 
MICHIGAN  CANAL 

A  Study  in 
Economic  History 

By  JAMES  WILLIAM  £UTNAM,  Ph.  D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECONOMICS  IN'fiUTLER  COLLEGE 

Illinois  Centennial  Publication 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

CHICAGO 

1918 


COPYRIGHT 

Bv  CHICAGO  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY 
A.  D.  1917 


Cftr  likrtfDt  ?««• 

R.  R.  DONNELLEY  *  SONS  COMPANY 
CHICAGO 


PREFATORY  NOTE 

The  approaching  centennial  of  the  admission  of 
Illinois  into  the  Union  awakens  a  new  interest  in 
the  agencies  that  contributed  to  the  making  of 
the  state.  The  following  pages  are,  therefore, 
given  to  the  reader  in  the  hope  that  they  may 
shed  some  light  on  the  economic  development  of 
the  commonwealth,  and  with  the  further  hope 
that  they  may  be  of  some  service  to  those  who 
interpret  our  country's  economic  history  in  its 
larger  phases.  Originally  prepared  as  a  doctoral 
dissertation  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  the 
study  is  subject  to  the  limitations  and  charac- 
teristics of  such  monographs.  In  the  preparation 
of  the  manuscript  for  publication,  the  statistics 
and  discussions  in  Chapters  III  and  V  have  been 
made  to  cover  the  developments  that  have  taken 
place  since  the  dissertation  was  first  written. 
Otherwise  the  study  retains  its  original  form.  The 
delay  in  publication  has  been  due  to  a  hope  that 
the  controversy  over  the  character  of  the  enlarged 
waterway  might  be  finally  settled  before  these 
pages  were  put  into  print. 

Acknowledgment  is  hereby  made  of  the  in- 
debtedness of  the  writer  to  the  many  persons 
through  whose  courtesy  the  investigations  were 
rendered  less  laborious  than  they  would  otherwise 


vi  PREFACE 

have  been.  The  officials  and  attendants  at  the 
several  libraries  were  uniformly  courteous  and 
obliging  as  were  also  those  at  the  canal  office. 
The  transportation  men  and  shippers  likewise 
rendered  substantial  aid  in  the  acquisition  of  facts 
which  would  otherwise  have  been  inaccessible. 
But  these  acknowledgments  would  not  be  com- 
plete without  mention  of  the  helpful  suggestions 
of  Professor  Richard  T.  Ely  during  the  progress  of 
the  work  and  of  the  reading  and  criticism  of  the 
manuscript  by  my  friend  and  former  colleague, 
Professor  Murray  Shipley  Wildman.  Miss  Caro- 
line M.  Mcllvaine  of  the  Chicago  Historical  So- 
ciety rendered  invaluable  assistance  during  the 
investigation  and  while  the  volume  was  passing 
through  the  press. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ix 

CHAPTER  I       The  Project I 

CHAPTER  II      Finance  and  Construction       .  30 

CHAPTER  III    Management 66 

CHAPTER  IV    Economic  Influence      ...  92 

CHAPTER  V      Improvement  and  Enlargement  126 

CHAPTER  VI     Conclusion         154 

APPENDICES 161 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 183 

INDEX 205 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

ILLINOIS — Outline  Map        .      .      .     Frontispiece 

CHICAGO  PLAIN — Relief  Map     .      .        op.  p.  4 

CHART  OF  RECEIPTS op.  p.  85 

CHART  OF  TOLLS  AND  EXPENDITURES    op.  p.  87 

THOMPSON'S  PLAT  OF  CHICAGO  .      .        op.  p.  94 

CHICAGO  HARBOR op.  p.  106 

CHART  OF  FREIGHT  CARRIED      .      .       op.  p.  113 


VII 


INTRODUCTION 

Recent  years  have  revealed  an  apparent  re- 
awakening of  interest  in  the  improvement  of  our 
national  waterways.  A  century  ago  the  subject  of 
waterway  improvement  occupied  a  large  place  in 
public  and  private  consideration.  But  for  more 
than  two  generations  of  men  the  public  interest 
in  water  transportation  has  steadily  declined. 
The  reasons  for  this  decline  are  obvious.  In  the 
early  days  the  waterway  furnished  not  only  the 
cheapest  but  also  the  most  expeditious  means  of 
transit  for  persons  and  property.  But  with  the 
growth  of  the  railway  net,  speed  and  convenience 
passed  from  the  steamboat  and  canal  barge  to  the 
railway  train.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  cheapness, 
a  third  important  element  in  the  transportation 
problem,  remained  with  the  waterway,  whenever 
and  wherever  adequate  facilities  were  provided  for 
properly  handling  the  traffic,  the  increasing  effi- 
ciency of  the  railways  gradually  led  to  the  neglect 
of  the  waterways  and  of  their  transportation 
facilities.  All  but  the  most  important  fell  into 
disuse  and  were  entirely  abandoned.  Not  until 
inconvenienced  by  annoying  car  shortages  and 
rate  discriminations  did  the  public  again  give 
serious  thought  to  the  possibilities  of  a  rejuvenated 
water  traffic. 


x  INTRODUCTION 

Throughout  the  years  of  discouragement  for 
the  waterways  some  of  them,  and  these  naturally 
the  most  important,  kept  up  a  portion  of  the 
services  of  former  days  and  demonstrated  their 
ability,  under  favorable  conditions,  to  furnish 
cheap  and  satisfactory  transportation,  especially 
for  cheap  and  bulky  commodities.  The  experi- 
ence of  the  public,  confirmed  by  numerous  de- 
cisions of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission, 
also  demonstrated  the  fact  that  these  water  routes 
exercised  a  potent  influence  on  railway  charges 
at  competitive  points.  The  experience  of  other 
countries  also,  and  especially  that  of  Belgium, 
France,  and  Germany,  confirmed  the  public  mind 
in  the  belief  that  a  well-arranged  and  effective 
system  of  waterways  would  serve  the  double  pur- 
pose of  supplementing  the  railways  as  transporta- 
tion agencies  and  of  exercising  a  degree  of  control 
over  railway  rates.  This  belief  prepared  the  way 
for  a  renewed  interest  in  waterway  development 
in  this  country.  This  interest  manifests  itself 
in  improvements  already  begun  and  in  the  lavish 
expenditures  Congress  is  permitted  to  make  for 
all  sorts  of  possible  and  impossible  schemes  for 
waterway  improvement. 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  the  waterways  for 
whose  improvement  there  is  now  the  strongest 
demand  are  mainly  those  which  formed  the  great 
highways  of  commerce  nearly  a  century  ago.1 

lThis  statement  ignores,  of  course,  the  exigencies  of 
"pork  barrel"  legislation.  It  considers  rather  the 
rational  demands  of  commercial  advantage. 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

Chief  among  these  are  the  Erie  Canal  and  the 
Mississippi  River  with  its  important  tributaries. 
Each  of  them  played  a  large  part  in  the  commercial 
development  of  the  Middle  West.  But  each 
acquires  added  importance  when  united  with  the 
other,  so  that  they  unitedly  form  a  commercial 
highway  extending  from  the  Atlantic,  through 
the  Great  Lakes  down  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and 
reaching  the  large  and  growing  trade  of  the  inte- 
rior. At  the  middle  of  last  century  these  two 
great  commercial  routes  were  united  by  two  canals 
across  the  state  of  Ohio,  one  in  Indiana,  one  in 
Illinois,  and  one  in  Wisconsin.  Aside  from  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  however,  these  did 
not  prove  of  great  importance  as  parts  of  such  a 
continuous  waterway,  whatever  their  local  im- 
portance may  have  been.  All  the  others  were 
more  seriously  handicapped  by  a  large  lockage 
and  a  shortage  of  water  supply  than  was  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal.  As  a  consequence 
they  more  readily  lost  their  importance  as  parts 
of  a  larger  system  and  gradually  fell  into  disuse 
even  as  local  trade  routes.  The  route  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  is  the  only  one  that 
is  practicable  for  a  connecting  waterway  that 
would  be  at  all  adequate  for  the  needs  of  present 
day  commerce,  to  say  nothing  of  the  probable 
needs  of  the  future.  No  one  now  seriously  pro- 
poses any  other  route  for  the  connecting  link  in  the 
proposed  great  waterway  system. 

In  its  essential  features,  the  present  movement 
for  a  deep  waterway  between  Lake  Michigan  and 


THE    ILLINOIS    AND 
MICHIGAN  CANAL 

Chapter  I 
THE  PROJECT 

No  problems  in  American  economic  history  have 
been  more  persistent  than  those  incident  to  trans- 
portation. In  varying  forms,  from  the  colonial 
days  to  the  present,  they  have  continually  pressed 
for  solution.  One  of  the  earliest  of  these  prob- 
lems, as  well  as  one  of  the  most  persistent,  was 
that  of  adequate  facilities  for  cheap  transporta- 
tion between  the  interior  and  the  seaboard  mar- 
kets. The  products  of  the  interior  could  reach 
the  seaboard  by  either  of  two  principal  routes. 
The  first  was  by  way  of  the  Mississippi  to  New 
Orleans;  the  second,  by  way  of  the  Ohio  and 
thence  overland  from  Wheeling  to  Baltimore  or 
from  Pittsburgh  to  Philadelphia.  Neither  of 
these  routes  was  satisfactory.  Both  as  a  local 
market  and  as  an  export  market  New  Orleans 
failed  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  interior.  The 
limited  population  of  the  city  and  its  adjacent 
trade  territory  demanded  only  a  small  part  of 
the  food  products  of  the  upper  portion  of  the 


2         THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

valley.1  The  export  trade  was  also  still  small  and 
was  subject  to  the  embarrassments  which  ham- 
pered all  our  foreign  trade  during  the  first  decade 
and  a  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  while  the 
route  from  Cincinnati,  Louisville,  or  St.  Louis  to 
the  Atlantic  cities  by  way  of  New  Orleans  was 
circuitous  and  expensive  for  domestic  trade.  All 
these  facts  combined  to  make  New  Orleans  a 
poor  market  in  which  to  sell  the  products  of  the 
interior.  The  supply  usually  exceeded  the  de- 
mand and  the  price  was,  therefore,  correspondingly 
low.2  The  long  and  expensive  over-land  carriage 
between  the  Ohio  and  the  eastern  markets  rendered 
this  route  impracticable  except  for  such  com- 
modities as  possessed  a  relatively  high  value  for  a 
moderate  weight  and  bulk.3  The  chief  exports 
of  the  interior  were  not  of  this  kind.  A  third 
possible  route  was  afforded  by  the  Great  Lakes 
and  their  eastern  connections,  either  down  the 
St.  Lawrence  to  Montreal  or  to  New  York  by  way 
of  the  Mohawk  and  Hudson  trade  route.  For 
lack  of  commercial  connections,  however,  between 
the  Mississippi  or  the  Ohio  and  the  Great  Lakes, 
the  latter  route  was  not  available  for  the  com- 
merce of  the  interior  with  the  exception  of  that 

xln  1 8 10,  the  entire  population  of  the  state  of  Louisi- 
ana was  only  76,556. 

2  Ford,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  96;  Report  on  the  Internal 
Commerce  of  the  United  States,  1888,  pp.  184-186, 191-198. 

'Turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  pp.  99-100;  Niles 
Register,  XX,  p.  180;  Journal  of  Political  Economy, 
VIII,  p.  36. 


THE  PROJECT  3 

of  the  few  scattered  settlements  which  had  grown 
up  about  the  fur-trading  posts  in  the  Northwest. 

The  problem  of  an  improved  means  of  com- 
munication which  would  bring  the  new  West  into 
closer  and  cheaper  commercial  intercourse  with 
the  eastern  cities  was  recognized  both  by  the 
cities  themselves  and  by  the  interior  as  of  prime 
importance.  The  bulky  farm  products  could  not 
pay  the  transportation  charges  and  compete  in 
the  eastern  seaboard  markets.1  The  cost  of 
carrying  merchandise  to  the  interior,  either  by 
way  of  Pittsburgh  and  the  Ohio  or  by  way  of  New 
Orleans  and  the  Mississippi  greatly  enhanced  its 
cost  to  the  consumer.2  Both  the  cost  of  exporting 
the  products  of  the  region  and  of  importing  mer- 
chandise operated  to  lessen  the  demand  for  im- 
ported commodities  and  to  drive  the  remoter 
settlements,  in  a  large  measure,  to  a  self-sufficing 
economy.  Similar  conditions  prevailed  to  a 
greater  or  less  degree  in  all  the  "back  country." 

It  was  the  effort  to  relieve  the  economic  burdens 
of  transportation  which  led  to  the  general  move- 
ment for  internal  improvements.  When  private 
capital  did  not  appear  in  sufficient  abundance  to 

turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  p.  101;  McMaster, 
History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  III,  p.  464; 
Andrews,  Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade,  p.  278; 
Annals  of  Congress,  I5th  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  I,  p.  1126. 

2Ringwalt,  Development  of  the  Transportation  Systems 
in  the  United  States,  p.  18;  Journal  of  Political  Economy, 
VIII,  p.  36;  Hyde  and  Conrad,  Encyclopaedia  of 
History  of  St.  Louis,  IV,  p.  2291. 


4         THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

develop  the  numerous  projected  works,  govern- 
ments of  all  grades  were  appealed  to  for  assistance 
in  these  undertakings.  In  his  report  of  1808, 
Secretary  Gallatin  endeavored  to  systematize  the 
various  projects  which  appeared  to  him  to  merit 
national  aid.1  His  scheme  provided  for  an  im- 
proved means  of  communication  between  the 
western  waters  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  but 
it  did  not  provide  for  an  adequate  connection 
between  the  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Great 
Lakes  with  their  proposed  New  York  connec- 
tion. 

Enlarging  on  Gallatin's  scheme,  Peter  B.  Porter 
of  New  York,  proposed  the  commercial  connection 
of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi  by  means 
of  a  canal  or  a  series  of  canals.  In  1810,  in  an 
endeavor  to  secure  the  aid  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment for  a  system  of  waterways  extending  from 
the  St.  Lawrence  and  the  Hudson  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  he  pointed  out  the  commercial  im- 
portance of  such  a  system  and  the  ease  with  which 
the  artificial  portions  could  be  constructed,  and 
particularly  that  portion  connecting  Lake  Michi- 
gan with  the  Illinois  River.2  Porter's  scheme  was 
not  a  novel  one.  The  commercial  importance  of 
the  proposed  united  systems  of  waterways  must 

1 American  State  Papers,  Miscellaneous,  I,  pp.  724-741. 

2 Annals  of  Congress,  nth  Cong.,  2nd  session,  II, 
pp.  1388-1393.  The  fact  that  boats  of  light  burden 
frequently  passed  from  the  Chicago  river  to  the 
Des  Plaines  during  periods  of  high  water  was  widely 
known. 


This  map  shows  the  ancient  outlet  of  "Lake 
Chicago,"  the  course  followed  by  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal,  to  be  the  most  feasible  route  be- 
tween the  Great  Lakes  and  the  great  river  systems. 


THE  CHICAGO  PLAIN     (Sifbtnthaf) 


ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CA 

op  the  num  varks,  govern- 

ments of  all  gr 

in    these   undertakings.     In   his    report   of    1808, 
Secretary  endeavored  to  systematize  the 

various  projects  which  appeared  to  him  to  merit 
national  aid.1     His  scheme  provided  for  an  im- 
proved   means    of   communication    between    the 
western  waters  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard 
it  did  not  provide  for  an  adequate  o 
between   the f  Mississippi   valley   and   the   ' 
Lakes  with    their   proposed    New  York    cr 
tion.         . 

Enl  .  Gallatin's  scheme,  Peter  B.  Porter 

ofNc  osedtht  eetion 

of  the  Great  I  leans 

aJcJ"  la  J-ibuq.  nnnnc  ,3fb   *v. 

of  a  canal  or  .a  series  of  canalL      in  I 

briE  ziomflT  srfj  ^d  bawoUol  3^ 

endeavor  to  se,m, 

ment  for  a  «yjfciifi  ifflf,  Hfllttrnr/miljflrfc^ 

the   St.   Lawn  i 

xico,   he   pointer     . 

portance  of  such  a  system  and  the. case  with  which 
rtificial  portions  could  be  constructed,  and 
ularly  that  portion  connecting  Lake  Michi- 
ith  the  Illinois  River.2     Porter's  scheme 
ne.     The  commercial  importar. 
united  systems  o: 

'      cllaneous.  i 


THE  CHICAGO  PLAIN     (Sifbenthal) 


THE  PROJECT  5 

have  been  obvious.  The  physiographic  character 
of  the  region  of  the  Chicago  portage  rendered  that 
the  most  feasible  place  for  a  canal  uniting  the 
Great  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi  system.1  The 
character  of  this  portage  was  well  known.  Since 
the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  had 
been  largely  used  by  explorers  and  traders  and  the 
feasibility  of  a  continuous  water  communication 
between  Lake  Michigan  and  the  Illinois  River  had 

xln  the  later  glacial  period,  the  enclosed  waters  of 
Lake  Chicago,  the  geological  predecessor  of  Lake 
Michigan,  cut  a  southwesterly  outlet  across  the 
Valparaiso  moraine.  Through  this  outlet  they  were 
discharged  into  the  Illinois  river  till  the  withdrawal  of 
the  ice  sheet  opened  an  outlet  to  the  northeast.  In 
the  meantime  the  floor  of  the  outlet  through  the 
moraine  had  been  lowered  by  erosion  till  it  now  stands 
only  about  twelve  feet  above  the  present  level  of  Lake 
Michigan,  the  subsidence  of  whose  waters  cut  off  the 
outflow  through  this  channel.  This  outlet  forms  a 
Y-shaped  valley,  one  fork  of  which  leads  from  the  south 
branch  of  the  Chicago  river  and  the  other  from  the 
Calumet.  These  two  forks  unite  about  twenty  miles 
from  the  lake,  and  united  enter  the  valley  of  the  Illinois 
river  beyond  the  moraine.  The  Des  Plaines  river 
passes  the  moraine  through  the  northern  fork  of  this 
valley  and  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal,  the 
sanitary  and  ship  canal,  and  the  Chicago  &  Alton 
and  the  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Sante  Fe  railroads, 
taking  advantage  of  the  very  slight  grade,  now 
pass  out  from  the  Chicago  plain  through  the 
same  outlet.  Geological  Atlas  of  the  United  States, 
Chicago  Folio,  pp.  1-12;  Davis,  The  Ancient  Outlet 
of  Lake  Michigan,  in  Popular  Science  Monthly,  XLVI, 
pp.  217-229. 


6         THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

been  frequently  commented  upon.1  The  scheme, 
however,  failed  to  secure  the  support  of  the 
government. 

Meanwhile  the  legislature  of  New  York  had,  at 
the  instance  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  Genesee 
country,2  taken  up  the  project  of  a  canal  from  the 
Hudson  River  to  Lake  Erie  as  preferable  to  the 
Lake  Ontario  route  proposed  in  Gallatin's  report 
and  adopted  in  Porter's  scheme.  The  accom- 
plishment of  the  project  was  placed  in  the  hands 
of  a  commission,  which  appealed  for  aid,  not  only 
to  the  federal  government,  but  also  to  the  state 
of  Ohio  and  the  territories  bordering  on  the  Great 
Lakes.  In  the  Michigan  territory  the  appeal  was 
referred  to  A.  B.  Woodward  who,  in  reporting 
adversely,  took  occasion  to  discuss  the  superior 
advantages  of  a  waterway  from  the  Gulf  of  St. 
Lawrence  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  the  completion 
of  which  would  require  only  the  construction  of  a 
short  canal  around  Niagara  Falls  and  another 
from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Illinois  River.3 

These  suggestions  had  no  other  effect  than  to 
call  more  distinctly  to  the  attention  of  the  public 

1  Benton,  The  Wabash  Trade  Route  in  the  Develop- 
ment of  the  Old  Northwest,  in  Johns  Hopkins  Univer- 
sity Studies,  XXI,  p.  28;  also,  Winsor,  Westward  Move- 
ment, p.  24. 

2  Libby,  The  Early  History  of  the  Erie  Canal,  in  the 
University  of  Wisconsin  jEgis,  March  17,  1893;  Fairlie, 
The  New  York  Canals,  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics, 

XIV,  p.  212. 

•  Niks'  Register,  VI,  p.  139. 


THE  PROJECT  7 

the  feasibility  and  the  future  importance  of  a 
canal  on  the  proposed  route,  a  service  which  Niles* 
Register  took  up  in  the  summer  of  1814  and 
continued  from  time  to  time  till  the  project  was 
consummated.1  There  was  no  local  demand  for 
the  canal  at  the  time  as  there  was  for  the  Erie 
Canal  and  the  one  at  the  falls  of  the  Ohio,  and 
several  other  schemes  for  internal  improvements 
then  being  forced  on  the  attention  of  Congress 
and  the  public.2  It  was  also  at  that  time  of  less 
consequence  in  the  development  of  the  trade 
between  the  seaboard  cities  and  the  interior  than 
roads  and  canals  connecting  with  the  upper  waters 
of  the  Ohio.  Population  northwest  of  Ohio  was 
confined  to  a  few  scattered  communities  along  the 
Great  Lakes,  whose  commerce  was  necessarily 
quite  limited,  while  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  River 
were  lined  by  settlements  practically  all  the  way 
from  its  source  to  its  mouth3  and  the  stream  itself 
was  a  great  highway  of  commerce.4  The  com- 
mercial interests  were,  therefore,  still  seeking 
primarily  an  Ohio  River  connection. 

The  second  war  with  Great  Britain,  however, 
resulted    in    a    renewed    interest    in    the    project. 

lNiles*  Register,  VI,  p.  394,  417;  X,  p.  427,  and  suc- 
ceeding volumes. 

2  American   State   Papers,  Miscellaneous,   I    and    II, 
passim. 

3  Census  Maps  of  the   United  States  for  1810;  also, 
Tenth  Census,  Population,  p.  xiv. 

4  Turner,  Rise  of  the  New  West,  pp.  80-82;  McMaster, 
History  of  the  People   of  the   United  States,   III,    pp. 
483-484. 


8         THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

The  unfortunate  experiences  of  that  war  em- 
phasized the  importance  of  such  a  route  over 
which  military  and  naval  forces  and  supplies 
could  be  transported  to  the  northern  frontier 
expeditiously.1  Consequently,  in  the  Indian  treaty 
of  August  24,  1816,  the  first  practical  step 
toward  the  accomplishment  of  such  an  object 
was  taken  by  the  extinction  of  the  Indian  title  to 
a  strip  of  land  along  the  route  of  the  proposed 
waterway.2  As  a  further  step  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, two  successive  examinations  of  the  physio- 
graphic character  of  the  region  were  made  and 
the  results  reported  to  the  War  Department.3 

^Treaties  and  Conventions  between  the  United  States 
and  Other  Powers,  pp.  413-415.  This  need  assumed  a 
greater  importance  in  the  public  estimation  after  the 
agreement  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  April  28-29,  J8i7,  limited  the  naval  forces 
which  might  be  kept  on  the  Great  Lakes  to  one  vessel 
on  Lake  Champlain,  one  on  Lake  Ontario,  and  two  on 
the  upper  lakes. 

2  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  VII,  p.  147.  Ninian 
Edwards,  one  of  the  commissioners  who  negotiated  the 
treaty,  afterwards  asserted  that  the  Indians  were 
influenced  to  make  the  sale  of  this  land  by  the  oral 
assurance  that  a  canal  would  be  opened  through  it, 
thereby  increasing  their  opportunities  for  trade. 
Illinois  Senate  Journal,  5th  General  Assembly,  1st 
session,  p.  77;  Edwards,  History  of  Illinois  and  Life  of 
Ninian  Edwards,  pp.  169-17$. 

8  The  first  report  was  made  by  Major  Stephen  H. 
Long,  on  March  4,  1817,  and  the  other  by  R.  Graham 
and  Joseph  Philips,  April  4,  1819.  American  State 
Papers,  Miscellaneous,  II,  pp.  555-557. 


THE  PROJECT  9 

Both  agreed  concerning  the  importance  of  the 
proposed  canal  and  the  ease  and  relatively  small 
expense  of  accomplishing  its  construction, although 
they  differed  with  regard  to  the  type  of  canal 
which  should  be  built.1 

Before  the  second  of  these  reports  had  been 
received  John  C.  Calhoun  had  come  to  the  office 
of  Secretary  of  War.  With  sentiments  unchanged 
since  his  fight  for  the  Bonus  Bill  and  still  an  en- 
thusiastic supporter  of  internal  improvements,  he 
transmitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  on 
its  request,  a  comprehensive  plan  for  a  system  of 
roads  and  canals,  the  construction  of  which  would 

1  Major  Long  proposed  a  canal  from  the  Chicago 
River  to  the  Des  Plaines  with  a  lock  at  each  end  and 
supplied  with  water  from  the  Des  Plaines.  Graham 
and  Philips  proposed  a  lake-fed  canal  cut  deep  enough 
across  the  Valparaiso  moraine  which  forms  the 
"divide"  to  permit  the  flow  from  the  lake  to  the  river 
farther  to  the  southwest  than  Long  had  proposed. 
They  conclude:  "The  route  by  the  Chicago,  as  fol- 
lowed by  the  French  since  the  discovery  of  Illinois, 
presents  at  one  season  of  the  year  an  uninterrupted 
water  communication  for  boats  of  six  or  eight  tons 
burden  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Michigan 
lake;  at  another  season,  a  portage  of  two  miles;  at 
another,  a  portage  of  seven  miles,  from  the  bend  of 
the  Plein  (Des  Plaines)  to  the  arm  of  the  lake;  at  anoth- 
er, a  portage  of  fifty  miles,  from  the  mouth  of  the 
Plein  to  the  lake,  over  which  there  is  a  well-beaten 
wagon  road,  and  boats  and  their  loads  are  hauled  by 
oxen  and  vehicles  kept  for  that  purpose  by  the  French 
settlers  at  the  Chicago."  American  State  Papers, 
Miscellaneous,  II,  p.  557. 


io       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

be  of  military  importance  in  the  defense  of  the 
country.1  In  defense  of  the  western  portion  of 
the  northern  frontier,  he  advocated  a  water  com- 
munication from  Pittsburgh  to  Lake  Erie,  a  road 
from  Detroit  to  Ohio  and  a  canal  from  the  Illinois 
River  to  Lake  Michigan.2  But  the  constitutional 
scruples  of  President  Monroe,  the  indifference  of 
the  South  and  the  hostility  of  the  East  to  any  in- 
ternal improvements  in  the  West  which  would 
result  in  a  further  migration  from  the  North 
Atlantic  seaboard  proved  fatal  to  his  plan. 

At  this  stage  in  the  development  of  the  project, 
local  interest  began  to  play  a  part.  It  was  on  the 
same  day  on  which  the  House  of  Representatives 
passed  the  resolution  requesting  Calhoun  to  report 
a  plan  for  a  system  of  military  roads  and  canals 
that  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Illinois  into  the 
Union  was  so  amended  as  to  place  the  port  of 
Chicago  within  the  boundaries  of  the  State.3  The 
amendment  was  made  with  the  evident  expectation 
that  the  state  would  become  interested  in  the 
development  of  the  waterway.4  Nor  was  this 
expectation  unfulfilled.  In  his  inaugural  message 
Shadrach  Bond,  the  first  Governor  of  Illinois, 

^alhoun's  report  was  dated  January  14,  1819. 
American  State  Papers,  Miscellaneous,  II,  pp.  533- 
535- 

2  Ibid.  535. 

3  Annals    of    Congress,    I5th    Cong.,    1st    Sess.,    II, 
p.  1677;  also  Moses,  Illinois,  I,  p.  277. 

4  Annals    of    Congress,    I5th    Cong.,    ist    Sess.,    II, 
p.  1677. 


THE  PROJECT  n 

expressed  the  conviction  that  the  canal  would  be 
of  great  importance  to  the  state,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Erie  Canal  then  in  process  of  construc- 
tion.1 Recognizing  the  serious  financial  difficulties 
which  lay  in  the  way  of  the  accomplishment  of 
such  a  work  by  the  young  state,  he  proposed  an 
appeal  to  Congress  for  a  diversion  of  a  portion  of 
the  funds  arising  from  the  sale  of  public  lands  in 
the  state  to  that  object.2  Although  no  action 
was  taken  on  his  suggestion,  the  state  interest 
became  henceforth  the  active  and  dominant  one 
in  support  of  the  project. 

Matters  incident  to  the  establishment  of  the 
new  state  government  absorbed  the  attention  of 
the  first  General  Assembly,  but  the  second  took 
up  the  question  of  the  canal  with  vigor.  It  re- 
quested from  the  federal  government,  first,  au- 
thority to  construct  the  canal  through  the  public 

1  Illinois  House  Journal,  ist  General  Assembly,  1818, 
p.  10,  also  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  ist  General  Assem- 
bly, 1818,  p.  10. 

2  The  "Enabling  Act"  had  provided  that  two-fifths 
of  five  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands  in  the  state  after  January  I,  1819,  should  be  set 
apart  as  a  fund  for  the  construction  of  roads  leading 
to  the  state.    Governor  Bond  proposed  that  Congress 
be  memorialized  to  so  alter  the  law  that   this   fund 
could  be  used  in  the  improvement  of  the  navigation 
of  water  courses  in  the  state.     He  believed  that  this 
fund  would  soon  accumulate  sufficiently  to  pay  for  the 
construction    of    the    canal.        United    States    Statutes 
at  Large,  III,  p.  430;  and  Illinois  House  Journal^  1st 
General  Assembly,  p.  10. 


12        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

lands;  secondly,  the  donation  to  the  state  of  the 
sections  of  public  lands  through  which  the  canal 
would  pass;  and,  thirdly,  the  diversion  of  the  two 
per  cent  road  fund  reserved  from  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  of  public  lands  in  the  state,  to  the  financing 
of  the  canal  construction.1 

At  the  meeting  of  the  first  session  of  the  Seven- 
teenth Congress,  Daniel  P.  Cook  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  Jesse  B.  Thomas  in  the 
Senate,  took  up  the  task  of  securing  the  compliance 
of  Congress  with  the  request  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Illinois.2  Their  earnest  and  persistent 
efforts  resulted  in  the  grant  of  authority  asked, 
but  not  in  the  financial  assistance  desired.  The 
act  of  March  30,  1822,  restricted  the  land  grant  to 
the  strip  on  which  the  canal  should  stand  and 
ninety  feet  on  each  side  of  it,  reserved  from  sale 
the  sections  of  public  land  through  which  the 
canal  would  pass,  and  authorized  the  state  to  use 
in  the  construction  of  the  canal  any  materials  on 
the  adjacent  public  lands.3 

Thus  authorized  to  construct  a  canal  through 
the  public  domain,  but  with  the  financial  problem 
still  unsolved,  the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois, 
by  the  Act  of  February  14,  1823,  appointed  a 
board  of  commissioners  to  determine  upon  the 
most  available  route  for  the  canal  and  to  estimate 

1  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  26.  General  Assembly,  pp. 
103,  106. 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  iyth  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  I,  pp.  32, 
153,  160,  194,  309,  311,  525-526,  709;  II,  pp.  1324,  1349. 

3  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  pp.  659-660. 


THE  PROJECT  13 

its  cost  of  construction.1  Owing  to  the  difficulty 
experienced  in  obtaining  a  satisfactory  engineer, 
the  surveys  could  not  be  undertaken  for  several 
months.  In  the  autumn  of  1823  an  examination 
of  the  region  was  made,  but  no  accurate  survey  was 
completed  till  the  following  year.2  Five  lines 
were  then  run  and  estimates  made  but  all  fol- 
lowed the  same  general  course  from  the  south 
branch  of  the  Chicago  River  across  to  the  Des 
Plaines  valley  and  down  that  to  the  Illinois.  The 
estimated  cost  varied  for  the  different  routes  from 
£639,542.78  to  £716,1 10.7I.3 

1  Laws  of  Illinois,  3d  General  Assembly,  ist  session, 
pp.  151-153.     The  board  of  commissioners  consisted 
of  Emanuel  J.  West,  Erasmus  Brown,  Theophilus  W. 
Smith,    Thomas    Sloo,    Jr.,    and    Samuel    Alexander. 
Col.  Justus  Post,  of  St.  Louis,  was  the  engineer,  and 
later  Ren£  Paul  was  also  employed. 

The  commissioners  were  also  directed  to  correspond 
with  the  governors  of  Ohio  and  Indiana  relative  to 
improving  and  connecting  the  navigation  of  the  Wabash 
and  Maumee  rivers.  The  people  in  the  southeastern 
part  of  the  state  were  more  interested  in  the  Wabash 
and  Lake  Erie  route  than  in  that  from  the  Illinois 
River  to  Lake  Michigan. 

2  The  swampy  character  of  the  region  to  be  surveyed 
and  the  height  of  the  water  in  spring  and  early  summer 
rendered  an  earlier  survey  impracticable. 

3  The  five  estimates  were  as  follows : 

First  route $716,110.71 

Second "     639,542.78 

Third    "     668,289.68 

Fourth "     662,718.24 

Fifth     "     689,746.96 


i4       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

While  these  surveys  were  being  made  the  finan- 
cial problem  was  not  forgotten.  Governor  Coles 
proposed  the  plan  of  annually  setting  apart  a 
portion  of  the  revenues  of  the  state  to  create  a 
fund  with  which  to  finance  the  undertaking.1 
But  this  plan  would  necessarily  entail  a  delay  of 
several  years  in  its  consummation.  Daniel  P. 
Cook  endeavored  to  reach  the  goal  by  a  shorter 
road.  He  again  appealed  to  Congress  for  the 
necessary  funds.2  Having  failed  a  second  time  to 
secure  a  grant  of  the  sections  of  land  through 
which  the  canal  would  pass,  he  urged  on  Congress 
the  national  character  and  importance  of  the  work 
and  the  propriety  of  its  being  constructed  at  the 
expense  of  the  national  government.  However, 
he  had  an  alternative  plan.  If  the  government 
still  neglected  or  refused  to  undertake  the  work, 
he  proposed  that  provision  be  made  for  its  accom- 
plishment by  permitting  Illinois  to  divert  from  the 
school  fund  the  three  per  cent  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  public  lands  in  the  state.3  The  pur- 
pose could  be  accomplished  by  changing  the  fund 
into  canal  stock,  the  profits  of  which  would  be 
paid  into  the  school  fund.4  Fortunately  for  the 
public  school  system  of  the  state,  his  plan  was  not 
adopted. 

1  Illinois  House  Journal,  4th  General  Assembly,  1st 
Sess.,  p.  14. 

2  Annals  of  Congress,   i8th   Cong.,    1st   Session,    II, 
p.  1914. 

3  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  III,  p.  610. 

4  Debates  of  Congress,  i8th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  I,  p.  99. 


THE  PROJECT  15 

Despairing  of  federal  aid  in  the  construction  of 
the  canal  and  with  the  state  finances  entirely 
inadequate  for  such  an  undertaking,1  the  General 
Assembly  turned  to  the  corporation  method  of 
financing  the  scheme.  The  Act  of  January  17, 
1825,  incorporated  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
Company,  with  a  capital  stock  of  $1,000,000,  and 
the  power  to  increase  it.2  The  act  of  incorporation 
specified  the  conditions  under  which  the  work 
should  be  begun,  the  latest  date  for  its  comple- 
tion, the  dimensions  of  the  canal  to  be  con- 


treasury  was  then  facing  an  approaching  deficit, 
due  to  depreciation  of  the  currency  in  which  taxes  were 
paid,  to  increased  ordinary  state  expenditures,  and  to 
rebuilding  the  State  House.  Receipts  and  expenditures 
were  as  follows: 

Funds  in  treasury,  Dec.  I,  1824  .........  $38,556.73 

Receipts,  Dec.  I,  1824  to  Jan.  I,  1826  .....   38,304.00 


Total  Receipts   76,860.73 

Expenditures,  Dec.  I,  1824  to  Jan.  I,  1826.. 107,782.12 


Deficit,  Jan.  I,  1826    $30,921.39 

Laws   of  Illinois,    4th   General   Assembly,    ist    Sess., 
p.  1 60. 

2  Laws  of  Illinois,  4th  General  Assembly,  ist  Sess., 
pp.  160-164.  The  incorporators  were  Edward  Coles, 
Shadrach  Bond,  Justus  Post,  Erasmus  Brown,  William 
S.  Hamilton,  Joseph  Duncan,  and  John  Warnock.  A 
copy  of  the  law  creating  the  canal  company  and  an 
editorial  supporting  that  plan  of  constructing  the  canal 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Illinois  Intelligencer  of  March  25, 
1825. 


16       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

structed,1  and  the  tolls  which  the  company  was 
authorized  to  charge.2  It  further  provided  that 
at  the  expiration  of  fifty  years  the  state  might 
acquire  the  canal  by  payment  of  the  actual  cost 
of  construction  and  six  per  cent  semi-annual  inter- 
est from  the  date  of  expenditure  to  the  date  of 
acquisition  by  the  state.  This  plan  for  solving 
the  financial  problem  was  short  lived.  In  spite 
of  the  liberality  of  its  charter  and  the  prominence 
of  the  incorporators,  the  company  was  not  able 
to  dispose  of  its  stocks.  Furthermore,  the  policy 
of  granting  away  to  a  corporation  the  vast  rev- 
enues which  he  expected  the  canal  to  earn  was 
strenuously  opposed  by  Daniel  P.  Cook,  who  had 
not  lost  faith  in  the  ultimate  outcome  of  his  per- 
sistent  efforts  for  federal  aid.3  Even  Governor 

lThe  dimensions  of  the  authorized  canal  were: 
forty  feet  wide  at  the  summit  water  level,  twenty-eight 
feet  wide  at  the  bottom,  and  having  a  minimum  depth 
of  four  feet  of  water.  It  was  intended  to  accommodate 
boats  seventy-five  feet  long,  thirteen  and  a  half  feet 
wide  and  drawing  three  feet  of  water. 

2  The  act  authorized  the  following  rates  of  toll :   On 
boats  constructed  exclusively  for  canal  traffic,  not  to 
exceed  one-half  cent  per  mile  for  each  ton  of  capacity. 
On  commodities  transported :    Flour,  all  kinds  of  grain, 
beef,  pork,  tobacco,  domestic  manufactures,  and   all 
other  articles  grown  or  produced   in  the  state,  three 
cents  per  ton  per  mile.    Merchandise  of  foreign  manu- 
facture, six  cents  per  ton  per  mile.     All  other  articles 
not   enumerated,  a    rate    not   to   exceed    eight  cents 
per  ton   per  mile.     Laws  of  Illinois,  4th  General  As- 
sembly, 1st  Session,  p.  162. 

3  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  475. 


THE  PROJECT  17 

Coles  had  also  come  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of  the 
policy  upon  which  the  state  had  entered,  and 
recommended  the  repeal  or  radical  alteration  of 
the  charter.1  Under  these  circumstances  the 
company  was  not  loath  to  abandon  its  project 
and  the  act  of  incorporation  was  repealed.2 

With  the  failure  of  the  canal  company  to  accom- 
plish its  object,  the  state  again  turned  to  Congress 
as  the  only  source  of  immediate  aid.  The  Adams 
administration  had  assumed  a  more  liberal  atti- 
tude toward  the  relation  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment to  internal  improvements  than  its  prede- 
cessors had  done.3  Therefore,  with  renewed  hopes 
the  General  Assembly  memorialized  Congress  and 
the  Illinois  delegation  redoubled  its  activities.4 
It  was  not,  however,  till  March  2,  1827,  that  their 
efforts  were  crowned  with  success.5  By  an  act 

1  Illinois    House    Journal,    4th    General    Assembly, 
2d   Sess.,  p.   ii.     Coles  claimed  that  he  had  always 
favored  public  ownership  of  the  canal,  but  had  deferred 
to  the  wish  of  the  General  Assembly  because  he  be- 
lieved it  better  to  have  the  canal  constructed  by  a  com- 
pany than  to  have  its  construction  delayed. 

2  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  476. 

3  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  First  annual 
message  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  especially  pp.   307-308,  and 
3H-3I3. 

4  Davidson   and   Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,   p.   475; 
Illinois   House   Journal,    4th    General    Assembly,    2d 
Sess.,  pp.  78-80. 

6  The  bill  was  passed  in  conjunction  with  that  for 
the  Wabash  and  Erie  Canal  and  contained  the  same 
provisions.  It  was  in  progress  of  these  bills  through 


i8       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

of  that  date  the  federal  government  donated  to 
the  state  of  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  the 
construction  of  the  canal  the  alternate  sections  of 
land  for  a  distance  of  five  miles  on  each  side  of 
the  proposed  canal.1 

With  the  land  grant  as  a  basis  the  state  began 
to  plan  for  definite  action  regarding  the  long- 
delayed  project.  Under  the  act  of  January  22, 
1829,  a  new  canal  commission  was  appointed  to 
take  charge  of  the  work  of  raising  the  necessary 
funds  and  placing  the  work  in  process  of  con- 
struction.2 Under  the  direction  of  this  commis- 
sion land  sales  were  begun,  the  towns  of  Ottawa 
and  Chicago  were  laid  out,  town  lots  were  sold, 
and  new  plans  and  estimates  for  the  work  of  con- 
struction of  the  canal  were  prepared.  But  the 
re-awakened  hopes  of  the  friends  of  the  canal  were 

the  Senate  that  the  plan  of  granting  alternate  sections 
of  public  land  in  aid  of  internal  improvements  was 
evolved.  Debates  in  Congress,  igth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess., 
Ill,  pp.  337-338. 

On  May  10,  1826,  a  bill  to  appropriate  public  land 
in  aid  of  the  canal  failed  in  the  Senate  only  by  the 
casting  vote  of  Vice-President  John  C.  Calhoun.  De- 
bates in  Congress,  I9th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  p.  698. 

1  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  IV,  p.  234. 

2  Revised  Code  of  Laws  of  Illinois,  1829,  p.  14.    The 
act  provided  for  a  board  of  three  commissioners,  ap- 
pointed biennially  by  the  Governor  with  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  Senate.     The  powers   and  duties  of  the 
Commissioners   were   specified   in   the   act.     Gershom 
Jayne,  Charles  Dunn  and  Edmond  Roberts  were  ap- 
pointed commissioners,  and  employed  James  Thompson 
as  surveyor. 


THE  PROJECT  19 

once  more  doomed  to  disappointment.  In  the 
first  place,  the  financial  problem  had  not  yet 
reached  its  solution.  The  land  sales  proved 
disappointing.  With  an  abundance  of  purchas- 
able public  land  more  advantageously  situated 
with  reference  to  transportation  facilities,  men 
hesitated  to  invest  in  canal  lands  till  convinced 
that  the  construction  of  the  canal  would  not  be 
further  delayed.1  This  assurance  they  did  not 
have  in  1830.  Furthermore,  the  alternative  plan 
for  raising  the  necessary  funds  proved  even  less 
successful.  On  January  5,  1831,  the  House  of 
Representatives  refused  by  a  decisive  vote  to  take 
back  the  unsold  portion  of  the  donated  land  and 
issue  script  to  the  amount  of  $1.25  an  acre  for  it, 
to  be  used  in  payment  for  the  construction  of  the 
canal,  and  receivable  at  the  government  land 
offices  in  payment  for  public  land.2  Nor  were  the 
commissioners  more  successful  in  their  search  for 
a  loan  based  on  a  pledge  of  the  canal  lands.  Capi- 

xThe  sales  of  lands  and  lots  during  1830  amounted  to 
only  $18,924.83.  The  canal  lands  were  sold  in  half, 
quarter  and  fractional  sections,  and  on  the  same  terms 
as  the  lands  sold  by  the  United  States.  Revised 
Code  of  Laws  of  Illinois,  1829,  pp.  16-17. 

2  The  bill  was  strongly  supported  by  such  men  as 
Clay  of  Alabama,  Bell  of  Tennessee,  Duncan  of 
Illinois,  Irvine  of  Ohio,  and  Rencher  of  North  Carolina, 
but  was  as  strongly  opposed  by  McCoy  of  Virginia, 
Martin  of  South  Carolina  and  Barringer  of  North 
Carolina.  The  contest  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the 
bill  by  a  vote  of  67  to  115.  Debates  in  Congress,  2ist 
Cong.,  2d  Session,  pp.  411-417. 


20       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

talists  did  not  look  with  favor  on  such  a  loan. 
J.  H.  Pugh,  the  president  of  the  board  of  canal 
commissioners,  visited  the  eastern  states  in  quest 
of  a  loan,  but  the  best  proposition  he  could  secure 
was  one  for  a  loan  to  the  state  for  a  term  of  fifteen 
years  with  interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent.1 
The  proposition  was  not  accepted. 

Meanwhile,  a  new  menace  to  the  canal  project 
had  arisen.  By  the  beginning  of  1831,  the  idea 
that  the  railroad  was  destined  to  be  the  mode  of 
transportation  of  the  future  was  gaining  adherents 
in  Illinois.  There  were  already  those  who  believed 
that  a  railroad  from  Chicago  to  Peru  would  prove 
more  beneficial  to  the  state  than  would  the  pro- 
posed canal.2  Their  position  was  soon  strength- 

1  The  capitalists  of  New  York  and  Albany  were  willing 
to  furnish  the  necessary  funds  on  any  one  of  five  plans : 
First,  they  would  take  the  donation  of  land,  construct 
the  work  and  own  both  the  land  and  the  work;  second- 
ly, they  would  subscribe,  under  a  charter,  one-half  of 
the  stock  in  a   railroad  and  own  the  land   and  the 
work  jointly  with  the  state;  thirdly,  they  would  lend 
the  state  the  necessary  funds  to  construct  it;  fourthly, 
they  would  subscribe  the  stock  under  a   charter  of 
incorporation;  fifthly,  they  would  subscribe  for  one- 
half  of  the  stock  on  condition  that  the  state  would 
sell  them  one-half  of  the  donation  of  land  at  $1.25  an 
acre.     The  commissioners  refused  to  consider  any  of 
these  propositions  except  the  third.     Cf.  Report  of  the 
Canal    Commissioners,    Illinois    Senate    Journal,    8th 
General  Assembly,  pp.  225-226. 

2  An  amendment,  March  2,  1833,  to  the  act  donating 
the  land  to  the  state  in  aid  of  the  construction  of  the 
canal  authorized  the  construction  of  a  railroad  instead, 


THE  PROJECT  21 

ened  by  the  added  argument  that  it  would  also  be 
the  cheaper  of  the  two  to  construct.  James  M. 
Bucklin,  chief  engineer  for  the  canal  commission, 
estimated  that  a  canal  supplied  with  water  from 
Lake  Michigan  would  cost  $4,107,440.43;  that  a 
"shallow  cut"  canal  with  the  summit  level  ele- 
vated eight  feet  above  the  level  of  Lake  Michigan 
and  receiving  its  water  supply  from  Ausogonaskki 
reservoir  and  from  the  Calumet  and  Des  Plaines 
rivers  could  be  constructed  for  $1,601,695.83;  and 
that  a  railroad  could  be  built  for  $1,05  2,488. 19.* 

The  estimates  of  the  engineer  and  the  result  of 
J.  H.  Pugh's  investigations  in  the  East  convinced 
the  canal  commissioners  that  the  railroad  was  the 
more  desirable  work  for  the  state  to  undertake. 
Therefore,  in  their  report  to  the  General  Assembly, 
January  7,  1833,  they  advocated  the  building  of  a 
railroad,  assigning  three  reasons  in  support  of  their 
recommendation:  First,  it  would  be  cheaper  to 
construct;  second,  it  would  be  open  to  commerce 
all  the  year,  whereas  the  water  in  the  locks  of  a 

at  the  option  of  the  state.  The  same  act  extended, 
for  a  period  of  five  years,  the  time  limit  within  which 
the  work  must  be  begun.  United  States  Statutes  at 
Large,  IV,  p.  662. 

:The  surveys  and  estimates  were  made  in  1830  and 
1831,  although  the  official  report  was  not  made  to  the 
General  Assembly  till  two  years  after.  Bucklin's 
preliminary  estimate  for  the  cost  of  the  railroad  was 
£964,168.74,  but  it  was  revised  before  his  final  report. 
Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1833, 
p.  17.  Preliminary  report  given  in  Illinois  Senate 
Journal,  8th  General  Assembly,  p.  61. 


22        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

canal  might  often  be  frozen  while  the  Illinois 
River  and  Lake  Michigan  were  navigable;  third, 
it  would  be  a  more  rapid,  and  a  better  mode  of 
transportation  and  travel  than  the  canal.1 

Although  formerly  a  supporter  of  the  canal 
project,  Governor  Reynolds  had,  also,  arrived  at 
the  same  conclusion.  In  his  message  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  December  4,  1832,  he  advised 
careful  and  serious  consideration  of  the  question 
as  to  whether  a  railroad  would  not  be  preferable 
to  the  canal,  and  concluded, — "I  consider  it  the 
only  practicable  mode  of  connection."2  But  the 
General  Assembly  was  unable  to  settle  the  vexing 
question.3  It  abolished  the  canal  commission  and 
left  the  state  without  either  canal  or  railroad.4 

The  failure  of  the  General  Assembly  to  provide 
for  an  improved  means  of  transportation  between 
Chicago  and  the  Illinois  River  was  a  source  of 
great  disappointment  to  the  inhabitants  of  that 
region.6  Such  an  improvement  was  daily  becom- 
ing more  imperative.  The  trend  of  immigration 
was  setting  "in  that  direction.  Within  four  years 
from  the  date  of  sale  of  its  first  town  lots  Chicago 
had  become  a  thriving  village  of  1,200  people,  and 
had  already  begun  to  lay  the  foundation  of  its 

1  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  Illinois  Senate 
Journal,  8th  General  Assembly,  p.  219. 

2  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  8th  General  Assembly,  p.  22. 

3  Laws  of  Illinois,  8th  General  Assembly,  p.  113. 

4  By  act  of  March  I,  1833. 

6  Chicago  Democrat,  December  10,  1833. 


THE  PROJECT  23 

commerce,1  but  it  sorely  needed  better  facilities 
for  carrying  on  commercial  intercourse  with  the 
interior.  But  the  interior  was  in  even  greater  need 
of  the  benefits  which  a  canal  would  render.  The 
scattered  but  growing  settlements  between  Chicago 
and  the  Illinois  River  were  dependent  on  overland 
transportation  for  the  sale  of  their  produce  and  the 
purchase  of  their  merchandise.  The  construction 
of  the  canal  would  promote  the  industrial  develop- 
ment of  the  region  by  giving  a  better  market  to 
its  products  and  by  diminishing  the  cost  of  its 
imports,  thereby  increasing  rents  and  property 
values.  But  such  a  connection  between  the  two 
great  systems  of  waterways  would  have  more  than 
a  local  influence.  It  would  reduce  the  prices  of 
New  York  merchandise  to  all  the  region  beyond 
Chicago  located  near  a  navigable  stream,  and 
increase  the  price  of  farm  produce.2  The  Erie 
Canal  and  the  Great  Lakes  furnished  a  commercial 

1  N ilcs*  Register  states,  on  the  authority  of  a  Chicago 
paper,  that  180  vessels  had  arrived  at  that  port  during 
the  season  of  1834,  whereas  two  years  before  a  dozen 
would  have  been  considered  a  large  number  for  the  sea- 
son.   Niles'  Register,  XLVII,  p.  55. 

2  The  usual  price  of  wheat  at  Buffalo  was  from  $1.12 
to  $1.25,  while  on  the  Illinois  River  its  average  price 
did  not  exceed  fifty  cents.    It  was  estimated  that  with 
a  canal  charging  the  same  rates  as  the  Erie  Canal 
wheat  could  be  sent  to  Buffalo  from  Beardstown,  on 
the  Illinois  River,  for  thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents  a 
bushel.      Cf.  Report  of  Senate  Committee  on  Internal 
Improvements,   Illinois   Senate  Journal,   9th    General 
Assembly,  p.  244. 


24       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

route  from  New  York  to  Chicago.  Steamboats 
were  plying  on  the  Illinois  River  as  far  up  as 
Peoria,  and  could  readily  extend  their  operations 
to  La  Salle,  the  western  terminus  of  the  proposed 
canal.1  In  spite  of  the  comparatively  heavy  cost 
of  transporting  merchandise  by  wagon  across  the 
country  from  Chicago,  this  route  was  cheaper 
than  the  ocean  and  river  route  by  way  of  New 
Orleans.2  It  was  therefore  evident  that  with  a 
means  of  cheapened  transportation  between  Chi- 
cago and  the  Illinois  River  the  traffic  on  that  route 
would  be  largely  increased. 

From  such  conditions  developed  the  agitation 
which  determined  the  issues  of  the  political  cam- 
paign of  1834,  so  far  as  the  northern  portion  of 

1  Drown,  Record  and  Historical  View  of  Peoria,  p.  107. 

2  Enoch  C.  March,  of  St.  Louis,  claimed  to  have  re- 
ceived merchandise  from  New  York  by  way  of  the 
Lakes    at  one-third    less    percentage   for   freight   and 
insurance  than  he  had  been  accustomed  to  pay  through 
the  other  route.     Also,  a  Mr.  Linton,  a  merchant  at 
Terre  Haute,  Indiana,  repeatedly  assured  members  of 
the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners  that  during  three 
preceding  years  (1830-1833)  he  had  brought  his  goods 
from  New  York  by  way  of  the  Lakes,  and  transported 
them    in   wagons   from    Chicago   to  Terre   Haute,    a 
distance  of  170  miles,  at  a  less  cost  for  freight  than  he 
had  previously  paid  on  the  other    route.     Report  of 
the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1833,  p.  4. 

In  1835,  Mitchell  said  that  the  completion  of  either  a 
canal  or  railroad  would  make  Chicago  a  place  of 
consequence  and  an  admirable  distributing  point  for 
eastern  merchandise  in  the  Mississippi  Valley.  Mit- 
chell, Compendium  of  Canals  and  Railroads,  pp.  76. 


THE  PROJECT  25 

the  state  was  concerned.1  Men  were  chosen  to 
the  General  Assembly  entirely  on  the  basis  of  their 
known  attitude  toward  the  question  of  the  canal.2 
Joseph  Duncan,  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  canal 
project,  was  elected  Governor.  His  interest  in 
the  project  was  evinced  by  the  fact  that  more  than 
one-third  of  his  entire  inaugural  address  was  de- 
voted to  an  effort  to  convince  the  General  As- 
sembly that  the  interests  of  the  state  would  be 
better  served  by  the  canal  than  by  a  railroad.3 
He  pointed  out  three  specific  advantages  which  the 
canal  would  possess:  first,  it  would  bring  into 
commercial  relations  the  vast  extent  of  territory 
tributary  to  the  two  great  systems  of  waterways 
which  it  would  unite;  second,  it  would  improve 
the  navigation  of  the  Illinois  River  by  turning  into 
its  channel  a  large  volume  of  water  through  a  lake- 
fed  canal;  third,  it  would  render  every  farmer 
independent  of  the  monopoly  of  railway  trans- 
portation by  enabling  him  to  transport  his  own 
produce  to  market.  Duncan  not  only  argued  for 
a  canal  but  he  argued  for  one  large  enough  to 
permit  steamboats  to  pass  freely  from  the  Illinois 
River  to  Lake  Michigan.4 

1  Chicago  Democrat,  June  u,  July  16,  July  30,  August 
6,  and  October  8,  1834. 

2  Chicago  Democrat,  August  6,  1834. 

3  Illinois    Senate    Journal,    9th    General    Assembly, 
pp.  21-29;  a^so>  House  Journal,  pp.  25-33. 

4  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  gth  General  Assembly,  p.  26. 
The  superior  advantages  of  a  steamboat  canal  over 

either  an  ordinary  canal  or  a  railroad  were  urged  by 


26       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

The  Governor's  message,  however,  was  not  the 
only  influence  brought  to  bear  on  the  General 
Assembly  in  favor  of  the  canal.  Newspapers 
and  mass-meetings  were  used  with  effect.  The 
Chicago  Democrat  was  particularly  active  in  pre- 
senting arguments  favorable  to  the  canal  and  in 
answering  those  of  its  opponents.1  Lengthy  mem- 

"A  Peorian"  in  the  Sangamo  Journal  of  January  23, 
1834.  The  article  also  appeared  in  the  Chicago  Demo- 
crat of  February  25,  1843.  Benjamin  Mills,  editor 
of  the  Galena  Advertiser,  opposed  the  canal,  and  espe- 
cially Duncan's  plan  for  a  steamboat  canal.  He 
considered  such  a  work  expensive  and  inadequate. 
A  transfer  of  freights  would  have  to  be  made  at 
Chicago,  because  river  steamboats  could  not  navigate 
Lake  Michigan.  As  an  offset  to  Duncan's  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  canal,  he  specified  seven  particulars  in 
which  the  raiload  was  preferable  to  the  canal: 

First,  it  would  be  cheaper  to  construct. 

Second,  it  would  be  cheaper  to  maintain. 

Third,  it  would  have  greater  durability. 

Fourth,  it  would  furnish  cheaper  transportation. 

Fifth,  it  could  operate  during  all  the  year. 

Sixth,  it  would  have  greater  speed. 

Seventh,  it  would  offer  perfect  certainty  of  opera- 
tion. Chicago  Democrat,  January  21,  1835. 

1  Chicago  Democrat,  January  14  to  December  30,  1834. 
It  was  the  custom  of  the  paper  to  copy  editorials  from 
the  down-state  papers  and  commend  or  contest  the 
opinions  expressed,  as  they  chanced  to  support  or 
oppose  the  canal  project.  It  was  particularly  hostile 
to  the  proposals  of  the  Alton  Spectator  and  the  Beards- 
town  Chronicle  for  a  railroad  from  the  Mississippi 
River  to  the  Wabash  River  or  to  Lake  Erie  in  order  to 
shorten  the  route  to  Buffalo,  claiming  that  such  a  work 


THE  PROJECT  27 

orials  to  the  General  Assembly  were  adopted  by 
mass  meetings  of  citizens  of  Cook  and  La  Salle 
counties,1  urging  the  construction  of  the  canal  and 
laying  special  stress  on  the  fact  that  it  would  fur- 
nish cheaper  transportation  than  the  railroad 
would  for  bulky  articles  such  as  the  outgoing  and 
much  of  the  incoming  freight  would  be.  For 
these  classes  of  freight  cheapness  of  transportation 
was  of  more  consequence  than  speed.  The  author 
of  the  memorial  showed  clearness  of  economic 
vision  by  pointing  out  the  fact  that  the  saving  in 
freight  charges  would  be  capitalized  into  taxable 
property  values. 

The  friends  of  the  canal  could  also  point  to  the 
favorable  opinions  of  men  less  influenced  by  local 
interests.  On  June  6,  1834,  General  Charles 
Gratiot,  chief  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the 
United  States  Army,  in  a  report  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Roads  and  Canals  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, strongly  urged  the  construction  of  the 
canal  from  the  Illinois  River  to  Lake  Michigan  as 
one  of  the  most  important  of  public  works.  His 

would  be  poor  "state  policy,"  because  Illinois  would 
have  to  help  bear  the  financial  burdens  of  Indiana 
and  Ohio  through  freight  charges,  whereas  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  canal  would  lie  entirely  within  the  state 
and  its  earnings  would  be  wholly  for  the  benefit  of  the 
state. 

xThe  former  November  5  and  the  latter  December 
2,  1834.  These  two  counties  at  that  time  comprised 
all  the  territory  embraced  in  the  canal  region.  For 
accounts  of  the  meetings,  see  Chicago  Democrat, 
November  5  and  December  17,  1834. 


28       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

view  of  the  relative  importance  of  a  canal  and 
a  railroad  on  this  route  was  expressed  in  these 
words:  "There  would  seem  to  be,  in  a  position 
such  as  this,  and  to  accomplish  objects  so  vast, 
no  question  as  to  which  of  the  usual  means,  rail- 
road or  canal,  should  be  resorted  to.  The  ex- 
clusive character  of  the  first;  the  repeated  handling 
of  the  commodities  transported  over  it,  always 
attended  with  expense;  the  complication  of  ma- 
chinery, and  the  consequent  liability  to  accident 
and  detention,  as  well  as  the  principle  of  rapid 
decay,  inseparable  from  the  materials  used  in  its 
construction,  seem  to  offer  to  my  mind  objections 
not  to  be  overcome.  A  canal,  on  the  contrary, 
would  afford  facilities  commensurate  with  the 
great  thoroughfares  it  would  connect,  and  the 
vast  amount  of  produce  afloat  upon  them  during  a 
greater  portion  of  the  year,  or  in  waiting  upon 
their  shores."  l  On  June  25,  1834,  the  Committee 
on  Roads  and  Canals  reported  to  the  House  in 
favor  of  the  construction  of  a  canal  of  sufficient 
dimensions  to  permit  river  and  lake  steamers  to 
pass  through  without  unloading,  a  matter  of 
especial  consequence  in  the  transportation  of 
bulky  or  breakable  articles.  The  committee  was 
emphatic  in  its  preference  of  a  canal  on  this  route. 
Although  these  reports  did  not  lead  to  favorable 
action  on  the  part  of  Congress,  they  were  published 

1  Chicago  Democrat,  December  10,  1834.  Also, 
House  Committee  Reports,  No.  546,  23rd  Congress, 
1st  Session,  p.  14. 


THE  PROJECT  29 

in   Illinois   newspapers   and   reinforced   the   argu- 
ments of  the  friends  of  the  canal.1 

With  all  these  reassurances  of  the  importance 
of  the  canal  and  the  demand  for  its  construction, 
the  General  Assembly  took  the  matter  up  at  the 
beginning  of  the  session.  The  committees  on 
Internal  Improvements  in  both  the  House  and 
the  Senate  made  long  reports  in  favor  of  the  imme- 
diate construction  of  the  canal,  repeating  in  detail 
the  most  important  arguments  that  had  been 
advanced  in  support  of  the  project  and  urging  as 
a  reason  for  immediate  action  that  the  needs  of 
the  state  and  the  condition  of  public  opinion  both 
demanded  such  a  course.  The  majority  of  the 
members  of  both  houses  accepted  the  views  of  the 
committees  and,  by  an  act  approved  February  10, 
1835,  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a  third 
canal  commission,  and  invested  it  with  powers 
thought  to  be  ample  to  raise  the  necessary  funds 
and  to  place  the  work  in  process  of  construction.2 

1  Chicago  Democrat,  December  10,  1834;  also  House 
Reports,  No.   546,   23rd  Congress,  ist  Session.      The 
Committee  accounted  for  the  recent  growth  of  railroad 
sentiment  in  these  words:     "A  prejudice  of  natural 
origin  pervaded  all  the  first  inquiries  on  this  subject. 
The  imagination  was  led  captive  by  the  flying  motion 
of  a  railroad  car,  impelled  by  one  of  the  most  powerful 
agents  hitherto  discovered  by  the  ingenuity  and  subject 
to  the  control  of  man." 

2  Laws  of  Illinois,  9th  General  Assembly,  ist  Session, 
pp.  222-226. 

The  Commission  consisted  of  five  men  appointed  by 
the  Governor  with  the  ratification  of  the  Senate.  The 
member  known  as  the  "Acting  Commissioner"  was 
practically  the  general  Superintendent  of  the  work. 


Chapter  II 
FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION 

It  was  a  Herculean  task  that  the  young  state 
had  set  for  itself;  but,  led  on  by  that  large  optimism 
which  has  ever  been  characteristic  of  the  continu- 
ally advancing  West,  the  people  of  Illinois  were 
not  dismayed  by  the  magnitude  of  the  under- 
taking. With  prophetic  vision  they  beheld  the 
completed  canal  bearing  on  its  placid  waters  the 
products  of  the  East,  the  West,  the  North,  and 
the  South;  they  saw  the  cities,  villages,  farms,  and 
factories  which  would  ultimately  come  into  being 
along  its  course;  but  they  did  not  see  so  clearly  the 
intervening  difficulties,  which  lay  like  the  sunken 
road  of  Chain  between  project  and  accomplish- 
ment. For  ten  years  the  commercial  and  indus- 
trial importance  of  the  Erie  canal  had  been  a 
familiar  story  to  the  people  of  Illinois,  and  they 
confidently  expected  to  see  that  history  repeated 
in  their  own  state. 

The  undertaking  had  been  long  delayed  because 
of  the  lack  of  funds  with  which  to  pay  the  cost  of 
construction.  New  York  and  Ohio  had  financed 
their  canals  by  means  of  loans.  Pennsylvania 
had  undertaken  a  great  system  of  internal  im- 
provements financed  in  the  same  way.  With  the 
land  grant  as  a  basis,  and  with  the  expected  earn- 
30 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  31 

ings  of  the  canal  as  an  additional  security,  the 
method  of  loan  financiering  seemed  entirely  feas- 
ible.1 It  was,  therefore,  to  this  method  that  the 
state  first  turned,  and  on  this  method  it  chiefly 
depended  to  the  end. 

The  act  of  February  10,  1835,  which  provided 
for  the  appointment  of  the  new  canal  commission, 
authorized  the  Governor  to  negotiate  a  loan  not 
exceeding  $500,000  on  a  pledge  of  the  canal  lands 
and  tolls,  and  "such  other  means  as  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  may  hereafter  give 
toward  the  construction  of  the  Illinois  and  Michi- 
gan Canal."2  As  evidences  of  indebtedness  the 
state  issued  certificates  known  as  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  Stock,  drawing  five  per  cent  in- 
terest and  payable  at  the  option  of  the  state  any 
time  after  i86o.3  The  proceeds  of  this  loan  as 
well  as  those  from  the  sale  of  lands  and  lots,  and 
from  the  later  operation  of  the  canal  itself,  when 
completed,  were  to  constitute  a  canal  fund  in- 
tended entirely  for  the  construction  of  the  canal 
and  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  canal  debt. 

Correspondence  was  at  once  entered  into  with 
New  York  financiers,  and  Ex-Governor  Edward 

1  Report    of    the    Senate    Committee    on    Internal 
Improvements,    in    Illinois    Senate    Journal,    1834-5, 
pp.  97-99. 

2  The  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  well  as 
Governor  Duncan,  believed  that  if  the  land  grant  al- 
ready made  should  prove  inadequate  to  pay  for  the 
construction    of   the    canal,    the    federal    government 
would  supplement  it  by  further  grants. 

3  Laws  of  Illinois,  1834-5,  PP-  222-223. 


32        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

Coles  was  appointed  the  special  representative  of 
the  state  to  visit  the  eastern  cities  and  negotiate 
the  loan.1  But  his  efforts  with  the  financiers  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  and  with  the  agents 
of  the  Rothschilds  proved  entirely  futile.  Basing 
their  opinions  on  the  experience  of  the  Erie  Canal, 
some  of  the  New  York  bankers  were  convinced, 
however,  that  the  loan  would  eventually  be  a  safe 
one  because,  by  giving  to  Illinois  both  an  eastern 
and  a  southern  seaport  connection,  the  canal 
would  lead  to  such  an  economic  development  of 
the  region  as  to  greatly  enhance  the  value  of  the 
canal  lands;2  but  in  the  meantime  no  sufficient 
provision  was  made  for  the  payment  of  the  inter- 
est if  the  sale  of  lands  and  lots  should  fail  to  provide 
the  necessary  funds.  Furthermore,  as  interest 
rates  in  this  country  were  at  that  time  higher  than 
five  per  cent,  it  would  be  necessary  to  dispose  of 
the  canal  stocks  in  Europe,  and  the  European 
financiers  were  not  disposed  to  accept  loans  based 
on  wild  lands  in  the  United  States.3  Other  states 
had  pledged  the  faith  of  the  state  in  support  of  the 
loans  which  they  had  raised  for  similar  purposes, 
and  the  bankers  who  had  taken  up  their  stocks 

1  Illinois  House  Journal,  1835-6,  pp.  12-13. 

2  Letter  of  J.  Delafield,  President  of  the  Phenix  Bank 
of  New  York,  to  Edward  Coles,  April  20,   1835;  in 
Illinois  House  Journal,  1835-6,  pp.  19-21. 

8  Letter  of  Edward  Coles  to  Governor  Duncan,  dated 
at  Philadelphia,  April  28,  1835;  in  Illinois  House 
Journal,  1835-6,  pp.  14-18. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  33 

would  not  accept  those  of  Illinois  on  any  other 


terms. 


As  a  result  of  his  experience  and  the  conferences 
held  with  the  financiers,  Coles  became  convinced 
that  the  loan  could  be  raised  only  on  a  pledge  of 
the  faith  of  the  state  as  to  the  payment  of  both 
the  principal  and  the  interest.2  Having  been 
brought  to  the  same  conclusion,  Governor  Duncan 
urgently  recommended  to  the  General  Assembly 
that  such  a  step  be  taken.  He  the  more  readily 
made  the  recommendation  because  he  was  con- 
vinced that  in  no  case  would  the  burden  of  the 
debt  fall  on  the  state.  Basing  his  opinion  on  the 
prices  received  by  the  federal  government  at  the 
sale  of  its  alternate  sections  of  land  at  Chicago 
in  the  previous  June,  he  considered  the  market 
value  of  the  canal  lands  to  be  abundantly  ample 
to  reimburse  the  state.3  He  expected  the  value  of 
the  land  to  continually  advance  with  the  progress 
of  the  work,  and  ultimately  to  bear  the  entire  cost 
of  the  construction.  Furthermore,  having  but 
recently  left  the  halls  of  Congress,  he  thought  he 
knew  the  temper  of  that  body  well  enough  to 

letter  of  J.  Delafield  to  Edward  Coles,  dated, 
New  York,  April  20,  1835;  in  Illinois  House  Journal, 

1835-6,  PP-  IQ-2i. 

2  Letter  of  Edward  Coles  to  Governor  Duncan;  in 
Illinois    House    Journal,    1835-6,    pp.     14-18.     Also, 
letter  of  Charles  Butler  to  Edward  Coles;  in  Illinois 
House  Journal,  1835-6,  pp.  21—22. 

3  The  estimates  of  the  market  value  of  the  land  at 
that  time  varied  from  $1,000,000  to  $3,000,000,  but 
probably  averaged  about  $2,000,000. 


34       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

safely  count  on  an  additional  grant  of  land  if  it 
should  be  found  that  the  grant  already  made  was 
not  sufficient  to  cover  the  expense  of  constructing 
the  canal.1  The  recommendation  met  with  a 
ready  response  on  the  part  of  the  General  As- 
sembly.2 Accordingly,  on  January  9,  1836,  a 
new  act  was  passed  reorganizing  the  canal  com- 
mission and  pledging  the  credit  and  faith  of  the 
state  to  the  payment  of  the  principal  and  interest 
of  the  loan.3 

A  new  commission  was  appointed  at  once  and 
used  every  effort  to  get  the  canal  under  way  at  the 
earliest  possible  moment,  believing  that  the  more 
actively  the  work  was  pushed,  the  easier  would 
be  the  task  of  financing  it.4  But  the  fact  soon 

Governor  Duncan's  message,  December  8,  1835; 
in  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  1835-6,  pp.6-io. 

2  The  Senate  Committee  on  Internal  Improvements 
estimated  the  value  of  the  canal  property  as  follows: 

About  250  lots  in  Chicago $    312,500.00 

250  lots  in  Ottawa 50,000.00 

277,383  acres  of  land  (at  $5  per  acre) . .      1,386,91 5.00 

Fractional  section  15  adjoining  Chi- 
cago and  containing  about  160 
acres 160,000.00 

Estimated  total  value $1,909,415.00 

The  committee  believed  that  by  adding  the  value  of 
the  water  power  which  would  be  developed,  the  sug- 
gested plan  of  financiering  would  be  entirely  practic- 
able. Illinois  Senate  Journal,  1835-6,  p.  101. 

8  Laws  of  Illinois,  1836,  pp.  145-154. 

4  The  Commission  was  composed  of  Gen.  William  F. 
Thornton,  Col.  Gurdon  S.  Hubbard,  and  Col.  William 
B.  Archer. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  35 

became  apparent  to  the  commissioners  that  the 
magnitude  of  the  undertaking  had  been  generally 
underestimated.  James  M.  Bucklin's  estimate  of 
$4,107,440.43  as  the  cost  of  a  lake-fed  canal, 
although  at  the  time  regarded  by  the  friends  of 
the  project  as  excessive,  was  now  found  to  be  en- 
tirely too  low  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  of 
such  dimensions  as  its  place  in  a  great  system  of 
waterways  and  its  probable  future  traffic  would 
demand.1  Therefore,  although  the  initial  expense 
of  the  canal  would  be  greatly  increased,  the  com- 
missioners determined,  on  the  advice  of  the  chief 
engineer,  William  Gooding,2  to  adopt  the  plan  of  a 
lake-fed  canal  sixty  feet  wide  at  the  water  level, 
thirty-six  feet  wide  at  the  bottom,  and  having  a 
minimum  depth  of  six  feet  of  water.3  Governor 
Duncan  also  urged  the  larger  canal.4  The  work 
was  laid  out  in  three  divisions,  known  as  the 
Summit  division,  the  Middle  division,  and  the 
Western  division,  and  these  were  sub-divided  into 


estimate  had  been  for  a  canal  45  feet 
wide  at  the  water  level,  30  feet  wide  at  the  bottom,  and 
having  a  depth  of  four  feet  of  water. 

2  As  a  former  engineer  on  the  Erie  Canal,  Gooding 
was  aware  that  New  York  had  made  the  mistake  of 
constructing  a  canal  inadequate  to  its  rapidly  growing 
traffic,  and  desired  to  prevent  the  same  mistake  being 
made  by  Illinois. 

3  Report  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal,  1836,  p.  8. 

4  Governor     Duncan's    inaugural    address,     Illinois 
Senate  Journal,  1834-5,  P-  2&- 


36       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

sections  of  varying  lengths.1  Deeming  it  good 
policy  to  begin  operations  in  the  vicinity  of  Chi- 
cago, the  commissioners,  on  June  6,  1836,  con- 
tracted for  the  construction  of  a  portion  of  the 
Summit  division.2  The  intention  had  been  to 
contract  for  the  entire  division,  but,  on  account  of 
the  abnormally  high  prices  of  labor,  provisions  and 
supplies,  the  bids  were  almost  uniformly  above  the 
estimates  of  the  engineers,  and  on  some  of  the 
sections  the  discrepancy  between  the  estimates 
and  the  bids  was  so  great  that  the  commissioners 
refused  to  accept  them.3  It  was  hoped  that  the 
experience  of  the  contractors  whose  bids  were  ac- 
cepted would  demonstrate  the  possibility  of  carry- 
ing on  the  work  at  the  lower  figures,  and  that,  by 
the  time  they  had  the  work  under  way,  the  prices 


seven  miles  of  earth  excavation  from  the 
Chicago  River  to  the  "Point  of  Oaks"  were  divided 
into  half-mile  sections.  From  that  point  to  the  term- 
ination of  the  Summit  division  there  were  twenty-four 
sections  of  thirty  chains  each. 

2  The  act  of  January  9,  1836,  required  the  commis- 
sioners to  hold  a  sale  of  lots  at  Chicago  on  June  20, 
of  that  year,  and  it  was  naturally  assumed  that  they 
would  bring  better  prices  if  active  preparations  for  the 
construction  of  the  canal  were  being  carried  on  in 
that  vicinity. 

*  Laborer's  wages  were  from  twenty  to  thirty  dollars 
a  month  and  board.  Pork  at  Chicago  was  from  $20 
to  $30  a  barrel;  flour  from  $9  to  £12;  salt  from  $12 
to  $15;  oats  and  potatoes,  seventy-five  cents  a  bushel; 
and  other  articles  of  consumption  commanded  similar 
prices.  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  p.  479. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  37 

of  labor  and  materials  would  so  decline  that  the 
remaining  sections  could  be  profitably  taken  at 
the  estimates  of  the  engineers,  or  even  below 
them.  But  these  hopes  were  doomed  to  disap- 
pointment. Some  of  those  whose  bids  had  been 
accepted  found  it  necessary  to  abandon  their  un- 
dertakings, although  such  an  act  involved  the 
forfeiture  of  a  penal  bond  to  the  extent  of  five  per 
cent  of  the  amount  of  the  original  contract.1 

The  work  of  constructing  the  canal  was  formally 
begun  with  imposing  ceremonies  and  a  great  cele- 
bration at  Canalport  on  the  Chicago  River,  July  4, 
1836.  But  not  much  progress  was  made  during 
the  summer  and  autumn.  Much  of  the  time  was 
consumed  in  preliminary  preparations  such  as 
constructing  roads  across  the  marsh  on  the  eastern 
sections,  building  houses  for  the  laborers,  and 
procuring  machinery  and  other  supplies.2  Being 
desirous  of  extending  the  work  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible, on  October  20  the  commissioners  let  the 
contracts  for  twelve  sections  on  the  Western  divi- 
sion, including  the  steamboat  basin  at  La  Salle.3 
Preliminary  operations  were  accordingly  begun 
at  the  western  extremity  of  the  canal  as  well  as 
on  the  Summit  level.  Owing  to  the  scarcity  of 
laborers  and  to  the  floods  in  the  Des  Plaines  valley, 

1  Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1836, 
pp.  10-11. 

2  Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1838, 
P-  5- 

3  Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1836, 
p.  ii. 


38       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

however,  little  progress  was  made  on  either 
portion  of  the  work  during  the  autumn  and  winter 
months.1 

The  commissioners  expected  that  the  work 
would  really  begin  on  a  large  scale  with  the  open- 
ing of  the  following  season,  but  in  this  expectation 
they  were  disappointed.  In  the  first  place  the 
continued  scarcity  of  laborers  along  the  line  of  the 
canal  seriously  retarded  the  progress  of  the  work 
till  well  on  toward  the  close  of  the  summer,  by 
which  time  they  had  begun  to  arrive  in  consider- 
able numbers  from  the  eastern  states  and  Canada.2 
In  the  second  place,  a  threatened  change  of  the 
plan  for  the  construction  of  the  canal  retarded  the 
letting  of  further  contracts,  and,  consequently, 
hindered  preparations  for  pushing  work  on  the 
central  division  and  certain  portions  of  the  western 
division  as  soon  as  a  sufficient  force  of  laborers 
could  be  secured.  The  plan  adopted  by  the  com- 
missioners was  attacked  by  the  House  committee 
on  Internal  Improvements  as  entirely  impracti- 
cable because  beyond  the  financial  ability  of  the 
state  to  accomplish.  The  committee  claimed  that 
the  estimates  of  the  engineers  were  untrustworthy 

Engineer's  report,  Illinois  Senate  Journal,  1837, 
p.  28.  With  the  hope  of  drawing  laborers  from  the 
eastern  states,  to  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal, 
advertisements  were  inserted  in  the  eastern  papers 
offering  wages  of  from  $20  to  $26  a  month.  N  lies' 
Register,  L,  p.  388. 

2  Report  of  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1838, 
pp.  6-25. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  39 

because,  they  had  omitted  entirely  several  import- 
ant items  of  expense  and  had  underestimated  the 
cost  of  others.1  By  the  estimates  of  the  commit- 
tee, the  canal  would  cost  $13,253,875.15,  or  nearly 
$4,600,000.00  more  than  had  been  anticipated.2 
The  Committee  proposed,  therefore,  that  the 
"shallow  cut"  plan  be  adopted  on  the  Summit 
level,  and  that  the  canal  should  terminate  at  Lake 
Joliet,  slack  water  navigation  being  provided  from 
that  point  by  means  of  locks  and  dams  in  the  Des 
Plaines  River.3  The  result  of  the  attack  on  the 
plan  of  the  commissioners  was  the  reorganization 
of  the  canal  board  and  the  appointment  of  Ben- 


total  cost,  as  estimated  by  the  canal  engineers, 
was  $8,654,337.51.  The  Seventh  Annual  Report  of 
the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  p.  73. 

2  The  engineers  had  estimated  earth  excavation  at 
33i!VV  cents  a  cubic  yard  and  stone  excavation  at  $1.54- 
yihy.    The  committee  estimated  earth  excavation  at  40 
cents  a  cubic  yard;  stone,  one-third  at  $1.241-^,  and 
two-thirds  at  $2.54^.      It   also   added  7^   miles   of 
slope  wall,  18  foot  cuttings,  129,885  perches,  at  $4.00  a 
perch,  $519,540;  a  towing  path  26  miles  long,  12  feet 
wide   and   8  feet  deep,  488,106  yards,  one-half  stone 
at  $1.25,  and  one-half  earth  at  25  cents  per  cubic  yard, 
$366,083  ;  and  a  guard  lock  at  the  junction  of  the  deep  cut 
with  the  Chicago  River  at  a  cost  of  $45,000.     In  addi- 
tion to  these  items  the  Committee  estimated  the  cost  of 
contingencies  and    superintendence   at  $1,329,451.48; 
and  improvement  of  five  miles  of  the  Chicago  River  at 
$16,565.75.     For  the  entire  argument  of  the  Commit- 
tee, see  Illinois  House  Journal,  1836-7,  pp.  326-347. 

3  For  the  plans  on  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  develop 
the  lakes-to-the-gulf  deep  waterway,  see  p.  145  et  seq. 


40       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

jamin  Wright,  of  New  York,  as  a  special  engineer 
to  re-examine  the  route  of  the  canal  and  give  to 
the  General  Assembly  an  expert  opinion  on  the 
relative  feasibility  of  the  two  plans.1  Wright's  re- 
port, made  October  23,  1837,  strongly  supported 
the  plan  adopted  by  the  commissioners,  and  urg- 
ently recommended  the  completion  of  the  work  on 
that  plan.2  This  report  was  accepted  as  remov- 

xThe  new  Board  consisted  of  Gen.  W.  F.  Thornton, 
Gen.  Jacob  Fry,  and  Col.  J.  A.  McClernand.  Under 
the  act  of  March  2,  1837,  the  Board  became  elective 
by  the  General  Assembly,  and  subject  to  its  control, 
instead  of  receiving  its  appointment  from  the  Gov- 
ernor and  being  subject  to  his  control,  as  its  prede- 
cessor had  been. 

2  The  following  extract  from  Wright's  report  indicates 
his  opinion  of  the  importance  of  the  work  as  planned 
by  the  Commissioners.  "The  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal,  as  now  projected,  and  under  construction,  may 
truly  be  considered  as  one  of  the  greatest  and  most 
important  in  its  consequences  of  any  work  of  any  age 
or  nation.  In  looking  over  this  connection  between 
the  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi  River,  it  is  no  doubt 
superior  in  its  advantages  to  any  other  which  can 
ever  be  formed.  It  is  the  shortest  artificial  work, 
with  the  least  lockage.  The  climate,  soil  and  the 
capability  of  productions  of  the  country  which  will 
be  benefitted  by  the  construction  of  this  work,  will 
certainly  equal,  if  they  do  not  exceed,  any  other 
part  of  the  United  States;  and  when  I  view  it  in  this 
light,  I  think  it  justly  merits  to  be  executed  upon  the 
best  and  most  permanent  plan,  and  will  justify  by 
its  revenue  any  outlay  which  may  be  put  upon  it  in 
reason."  Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners, 
1838,  p.  80. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  41 

ing  all  doubt  of  the  continuance  of  the  work  on 
the  plan  adopted. 

The  financial  situation  in  the  early  part  of  the 
summer  of  1837  tended  to  still  further  embarrass 
the  activities  of  the  commissioners  and  the  progress 
of  the  work.  The  preceding  year  had  been  a  suc- 
cessful one  for  the  canal  finances.  Under  the 
conditions  established  by  the  act  of  January  9, 
1836,  the  canal  bonds  had  become  marketable 
securities.  Governor  Duncan  easily  negotiated 
the  authorized  loan  in  New  York  at  a  premium  of 
five  per  cent.1  The  sales  of  lots  had  also  resulted 
much  more  favorably  than  those  of  six  years  be- 
fore.2 The  real  estate  market  at  Chicago  had 
been  extremely  active  for  the  past  two  years,  and 
the  prospect  of  the  early  construction  of  the  canal 
gave  it  a  still  firmer  tone.3  Under  the  favorable 
market  conditions,  the  commissioners  were  able 
to  dispose  of  375  lots  in  Chicago  in  June,  1836,  at 
the  total  price  of  $i,355,755,4  and  three  months 
later,  Sept.  26,  they  sold  at  Ottawa  seventy-eight 
lots  for  $21,358,  an  excess  of  more  than  $2,000 

lAt  first  he  refused  to  sell  more  than  $100,000  of 
the  bonds  on  the  terms  offered,  thinking  five  per  cent 
too  low  a  premium;  but  obtaining  no  better  offer  he 
sold  the  remaining  $400,000  in  1837.  Illinois  House 
Journal,  1836-7,  p.  15. 

2  The  earlier  sales  had  yielded  only  $18,924.83. 

3  Wright's  Chicago,  pp.  4-5. 

4  41 5  lots  were  sold,  but  forty  of  them  were  forfeited  by 
the  failure  of  the  purchasers  to  make  the  first  payment. 
Report  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1836,  p.  12. 


42        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

above  the  appraised  value.  In  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  act  authorizing  these  sales, 
one-fourth  of  the  proceeds  and  the  interest  on  the 
remaining  three-fourths  were  paid  to  the  treasurer 
of  the  canal  fund.  With  this  sum  together  with 
the  second  installments  which  would  fall  due 
respectively  in  June  and  September,  1837,  and 
with  the  proceeds  of  the  loans  which  the  Governor 
had  been  authorized  to  negotiate,1  it  was  confident- 
ly expected  that  the  work  could  be  readily  main- 
tained during  the  year.2 

The  work  of  the  season  of  1837  had  but  fairly 
gotten  under  way,  however,  when  the  panic  of  that 
year  swept  over  the  state.  As  a  means  of  self- 
protection  the  State  Bank  of  Illinois  suspended 
specie  payments  on  May  24.  At  that  time  it 
held  $390,834.89  of  canal  funds.  Moreover,  with- 
in the  next  month  the  second  installment  of  the 
payments  on  the  Chicago  lots,  amounting  to  some- 

*By  the  act  of  March  2,  1837,  the  Governor  had  been 
authorized  to  negotiate  a  second  loan  for  $500,000. 

2  On  May  4,  1837,  the  treasurer  of  the  canal  fund 
reported  the  available  funds  for  the  work  of  the  year 
as  follows: 

Cash  in  Branch  Bank  at  Chicago.. .  .       $297,081.53 
Loan  to  be  negotiated  by  the  Gov- 
ernor          500,000.00 

Second  installment  of  payments  on 

Chicago  and  Ottawa  lots 385,591.39 

Total $1,182,672.92 

Report  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal,  1837  (111.  Sen.  Jour.  10  As.  Spec.  1837,  p.  24). 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  43 

thing  like  $375,000  would  fall  due,  and  unless 
other  provision  were  made  for  the  disposal  of  it, 
it  would  become  a  deposit  in  the  Chicago  branch 
of  the  State  Bank.  The  situation  presented  a 
grave  danger  to  the  prosecution  of  the  work  on  the 
canal.  Under  the  law  of  Illinois,  if  the  suspension 
of  specie  payments  should  continue  for  more  than 
sixty  days,  the  Bank  would  forfeit  its  charter.1 
Such  an  event  would  tie  up  the  canal  funds  during 
an  indefinite  period  of  liquidation.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  Bank  were  forced  to  resume  specie 
payments  it  would  soon  be  drained  of  its  specie  and 
ultimately  compelled  to  pay  its  creditors  in  de- 
preciated currency.  In  the  first  case  the  work  on 
the  canal  would  have  to  stop  until  such  time 
as  the  state  could  secure  other  funds  with  which 
to  carry  it  on.  In  the  second  case,  the  cost  to 
the  state  would  be  still  further  enhanced  by  the 
depreciation  of  the  currency  with  which  it  would 
have  to  pay  its  creditors  and  the  consequent  higher 
prices  it  would  be  compelled  to  pay  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  portions  of  the  work  not  already 
under  contract,  to  say  nothing  of  the  possibility  of 
driving  the  contractors  then  at  work  into  bank- 
ruptcy. After  a  careful  canvass  of  the  situation, 
Governor  Duncan  called  the  General  Assembly  in 
special  session  on  July  10,  and  it  legalized  an 
indefinite  suspension  of  specie  payments.2 

xLaw  of  February  12,  1835,  supplemented  by  an  act 
of  January  18,  1836. 

2  At  the  time  of  suspension  the  State  Bank  was 
indebted  to  the  state  as  follows: 


44       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

By  the  autumn  of  1837,  however,  work  on  the 
canal  had  assumed  the  proportions  which  the  com- 
missioners had  anticipated  several  months  earlier.1 
And,  although  the  sudden  increase  of  a  transient 
population  and  the  consequent  enlarged  demand 
for  materials  and  provisions  in  an  undeveloped 
region  added  materially  to  the  financial  burdens 
of  the  contractors,  the  work  was  carried  forward 
with  such  vigor  that  at  the  close  of  Governor 
Duncan's  administration  in  December,  1838,  the 
entire  line  of  the  canal  was  under  contract  except 
about  twenty-three  miles  of  the  Middle  division 
between  Dresden  and  Marseilles.2  Several  sec- 
Capital  stock  held  by  state $100,000.00 

Agreement  to  pay  Wiggins  loan 100,000.00 

State  deposits  held 388,669.51 

Canal  funds  held  in  Chicago  Branch.         285,834.89 
Canal  fund  on  N.  Y.  loan  and  pre- 
mium            105,000.00 

Total $979,504.40 

Governor  Duncan's  message,  Senate  Journal,  Special 
Session,  1837,  p.  9. 

*The  expenditures  for  work  on  the  canal  were 
$70,902.30  from  December  I,  1836  to  June  I,  1837. 
The  expenditures  for  the  year  1837  were  $350,649.90. 
Evidently,  more  than  $280,000.00  of  this  sum  was 
expended  after  June  I. 

2  Enhanced  prices  of  supplies  resulting  from  the 
greatly  increased  demand  and  the  difficulty  of  supply- 
ing machinery  and  tools  with  which  to  utilize  to  best 
advantage  the  greater  labor  supply  proved  so  great  a 
financial  burden  that  several  contractors  were  forced 
to  abandon  their  contracts.  In  order  to  prevent 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  45 

tions  of  the  Western  division  were  completed  and 
others  far  advanced.1 

Henceforth,  the  greatest  problem  of  the  com- 
missioners was  that  of  supplying  sufficient  funds 
to  enable  the  contractors  to  continue  the  work  and 
maintain  the  labor  that  was  available.  The  two 
loans  authorized  by  the  acts  of  January  9,  1836, 
and  March  2,  1837,  had  yielded  a  revenue  of 
$1,036,21 1. 6y.2  Up  to  December  3, 1838, $444,292 


others  from  pursuing  the  same  course,  the  com- 
missioners established  a  store  at  Lockport  from  which 
they  furnished  to  the  contractors  such  supplies  as  were 
not  obtainable  in  the  region  of  the  canal,  and  deducted 
the  price  of  these  supplies  from  the  contractors' 
monthly  estimates.  The  result  was  so  satisfactory 
that  no  more  contracts  were  abandoned,  and  those 
that  had  been  given  up  were  re-let  to  the  contractors 
who  had  continued  at  work.  Report  of  the  Board  of 
Commissioners  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal, 
1838,  p.  6. 

Governor  Duncan's  message,  December  4,  1838, 
Illinois  House  Journal,  1838-9;  pp.  13-14. 

2  Each  act  authorized  a  loan  of  $500,000.  The 
first  loan  was  placed  in  two  installments  of  $100,000, 
and  $400,000  respectively,  and  at  a  premium  of  5%. 
The  second  was  placed  at  par.  The  proceeds  of  the 
two  were  as  follows: 

$500,000  at  5%  premium .        $525,000.00 

500,000  at  par 500,000.00 

$1,025,000.00 

Interest  on  deposits 11,211.67 

Aggregate  proceeds $1,036,211.67 

Report  of  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1838,  p.  53. 


46       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

had  been  received  from  the  sale  of  canal  lands 
and  lots.  Thus  far  the  funds  received  from  these 
sources  had  proven  sufficient  to  maintain  the 
work,  but  it  was  entirely  evident  that  provision 
must  be  made  soon  for  further  available  resources 
if  the  work  was  to  continue.  $1,434,838.02  had 
already  been  paid  out  for  work  done.1  The  funds 
in  the  treasury  were  diminishing  and  the  monthly 
expenditures  on  the  canal  were  rapidly  increasing.2 
A  loan  of  $4,00x3,000,  bearing  six  per  cent  interest, 
was  therefore  authorized,3  and  Ex-Governor  John 
Reynolds  and  Hon.  R.  M.  Young,  at  that  time  a 
United  States  Senator,  from  Illinois,  were  ap- 
pointed special  agents  of  the  state  to  negotiate  the 
loan.4 

In  April,  1839,  Mr.  Reynolds  negotiated  two 
loans.  The  first  for  $300,000  was  placed  with 
John  Delafield,  President  of  the  Phoenix  Bank  of 
New  York.  By  the  terms  of  this  loan,  however,  it 
would  not  afford  much  financial  aid  to  the  work 

1  Report  of  the  Board  of  the   Canal   Commissioners, 
1838,  p.  61. 

2  The  increase  of  expenditures  is  roughly  indicated 
by  the  following  statement  of  annual  payments  for 
work  done  on  the  canal : 

1836 $  39,260.58 

1837 350,649.90 

1838  91 1,902.40 

3  By  act  of  February  23,  1839. 

4  The   sales   of   Illinois  and  Michigan   Canal   bonds 
before  1840  were  as  follows: 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION 


47 


on  the  canal  till  late  in  the  year.1  The  second 
gave  more  immediate  results.  It  was  for  $1,000,- 
ooo  and  was  placed  with  Thomas  Dunlap,  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  Bank  of  Philadelphia.2 


Date  of  act 

authorizing  sale 


Number  and  denomination 
of  bonds 


By  whom  and  to 
whom  sold 


Jan.    9,1836      500  bonds,  $1000  each 


500 
300 


Mar.  2,1837 
July  21, 1837 


Feb.  23,  1839  1000 


Feb.  23,  1839   100 


Feb.  23,  1839   150 


Feb.  23,  1839  1000 


Feb.  23,  1839 
Feb.  23,  1839 

Feb.  1,  1840 


Gov.  Duncan  to 
State  Bank  of  111... 

$1000  "    Same 

$1000    "          Gen.   Rawlings     to 
J.Delafield,N.Y... 
£225    "          Rawlings  and  Reyn- 
olds to  U.S.  Bank. 
(Redeemable        at 

London) 

£225  "  Gen.  Thornton  to 
different  persons. 
(Redeemable  at 

N.  Y.) 

£225  "  Wright  &  Co.  under 
contract  with  Young 
and  Reynolds.  (Re- 
deemable at  Lon- 
don.)   

£225  "  Governor  to  con- 
tractors. (Latter  to 
Magniac,  Smith  & 
Co.,  London,  at  83.) 

Yield  to  state 

$1000  "  Canal  commission- 
ers to  contractors. 

(1841) 

$1000    "          Gen.   Whiteside  to 
Duffee  &  Co.,  48  re- 
(48  redeemed)  deemed     by     Gov. 

Ford,  leaving 

Checks  on  State  Bank  of  Illinois  bearing  6  per 
cent  interest  and  payable  when  funds  became 
available  for  that  purpose.  Amount  of  issue . . 


197 


84 


Total  amount 
yielded 

$525,000.00 
500,000.00 

300,000.00 


976,396.67 
100,000.00 

145,188.00 

1,075,000.00 
197,000.00 

36,000.00 
409,448.70 


1  By  terms  of  the  contract,  $50,000  was  to  be  paid 
within  fifteen  days  after  the  delivery  of  the  bonds, 
another  $50,000  on  August  1st,  and  $50,000  on  the 
first  of  each  month  from  October  to  January  inclusive. 

2  Governor  Carlin's  message,  Dec.  10,  1839,  Illinois 
House  Journal,  Special  Session,  1839-40;  p.  19.     Also, 
Carlin's  letter  to  Ford  relative  to  the  sale  of  bonds, 
etc.,  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  p.  172. 


48       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

By  agreement,  the  proceeds  of  this  loan  were 
paid  in  monthly  installments  of  $100,000  each. 
This  sum,  however,  was  not  sufficient  to  meet  the 
demands  on  the  canal  funds.  By  the  first  of  May 
the  monthly  expenditures  had  reached  the  neigh- 
borhood of  $150,000,  and  on  the  first  of  June  the 
canal  funds  showed  a  deficit  of  $208,000.  *  To 
meet  this  deficit  Governor  Carlin  placed  $500,000 
of  state  bonds  in  the  hands  of  Gen.  W.  F.  Thorn- 
ton, President  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commis- 
sioners, for  sale  in  the  local  market.  Of  these 
bonds,  Gen.  Thornton  sold  $100,000  in  Chicago 
at  a  premium  of  one  per  cent,  but  was  unable 
to  dispose  of  the  remainder  on  satisfactory  terms.2 
Arrangements  were  therefore  made  with  the  State 
Bank  of  Illinois  to  furnish  the  state  sufficient  funds, 
supplementary  to  the  installments  from  the  United 
States  Bank,  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  curtail- 
ment in  the  forces  on  the  canal  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  year. 

The  most  pressing  and  immediate  needs  having 
been  provided  for,  Reynolds  and  Young  en- 
deavored to  float  the  remainder  of  the  authorized 
loan  in  London,  but  the  condition  of  the  money 
market  made  it  impossible  to  sell  the  bonds  at 
par.3  After  considerable  negotiation,  they  placed 
$1,000,000  of  sterling  bonds  drawing  six  per  cent 
interest,  with  the  brokerage  firm  of  John  Wright 

Governor  Carlin's  message,  Dec.  10,  1839. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  49 

&  Co.  for  sale  at  a  minimum  of  ninety-one  per 
cent  of  par  value,  and  with  the  understanding 
that  these  bonds  should  be  replaced  by  others 
of  like  amount  and  rate  but  bearing  interest  pay- 
able semi-annually  instead  of  annually.1  On  this 
deposit  of  bonds,  Wright  &  Co.  advanced  30,000 
pounds  which,  by  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
yielded  the  canal  funds  $145, i88.2  The  firm, 
however,  failed  before  the  delivery  of  the  new 
bonds,  and  no  further  funds  were  available  from 
this  source. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year  1840  the  canal 
treasury  was  once  again  in  a  depleted  condition, 
and  on  the  first  of  March  the  commissioners  were 
forced  to  the  expedient  of  issuing  to  the  contractors 
checks  bearing  six  per  cent  interest  and  payable 
at  such  time  as  the  necessary  funds  should  be 
provided.3  An  effort  was  made  to  replenish  the 
treasury  by  a  further  sale  of  bonds,  and  in  order 
to  increase  their  marketability  the  act  of  February 
I,  1840,  directed  the  commissioners  to  sell  enough 
lands  and  lots  to  pay  the  interest  on  the  canal 
loans.  But  sales  extending  over  a  period  from 
June  30  to  July  13  yielded  only  $7,387.06,  and  this 

1  Carlin's  letter  to  Ford  relative  to  the  sale  of  bonds, 
etc.,  in  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  p.  172.     The 
semi-annual   payment  of  interest  was  authorized  by 
the  act  of  Feb.  i,  1840. 

2  Message  of  Governor  Carlin,  Dec.  7,  1842,  Illinois 
Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  p.  6. 

3  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners, 
p.  112. 


So       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

sum  was  principally  paid  in  Canal  scrip.1  Finding 
it  impossible  to  continue  the  sale  without  such  a 
reduction  in  the  price  of  the  land  as  would,  in 
their  judgment,  prejudice  the  interests  of  the  state, 
the  commissioners  abandoned  the  effort  to  raise 
funds  by  this  means.2  At  this  juncture  the  con- 
tractors held  a  meeting  at  Lockport  and  proposed 
to  take  $1,000,000  of  the  authorized  bonds  at  par 
and  bear  the  discount  at  which  they  would  have 
to  be  sold.3  The  proposal  was  accepted  and 
Gen.  Thornton,  on  behalf  of  the  purchasers,  sold 
the  bonds  to  Magniac,  Smith  &  Co.  of  London,  at 
a  discount  of  fifteen  per  cent.4  This  act  of  the 
contractors  made  it  possible  to  continue  the  work 
for  several  months  longer,  but  with  a  somewhat 
diminished  labor  force.6 

xThe  sales  amounted  to  $60,775.57,  but  by  the  pro- 
vision of  the  act  of  February  i,  1840,  only  one-fourth 
of  the  purchase  price  of  the  timber  land  was  payable 
in  cash  and  the  remainder  in  three  annual  installments, 
while  only  one-tenth  of  the  price  of  the  prairie  land  was 
payable  at  the  time  of  the  purchase  and  the  remainder 
in  twenty  years.  The  deferred  payments  drew  interest 
at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent. 

2  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  p.  9. 

8  Gen.  W.  F.  Thornton,  President  of  the  Board  of  Canal 
Commissioners,  and  W.  B.  Ogden  and  George  Barnett, 
contractors,  were  appointed  a  special  committee  to 
carry  on  the  negotiations  with  Governor  Carlin. 

4  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners, 
p.  113. 

B  The  amount  paid  for  work  in  1839  was  $1,479,907.58; 
for  1840,  $1,117,702.30;  and  for  1841,  $644,875.94.  Be- 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  51 

Although  the  canal  treasury  had  again  been 
drained  of  its  funds  by  March  I,  1841,  the  con- 
tractors continued  their  work  and  their  active 
preparations  for  the  following  season  with  the 
apparent  hope  that  the  General  Assembly  would 
be  able  to  successfully  solve  the  financial  problem 
to  which  it  had  addressed  itself  throughout  the 
winter.  But  the  Legislators  proved  unequal  to 
the  task.  The  large  sales  of  state  bonds  within 
the  preceding  decade  had  surfeited  a  depressed 
market  with  that  particular  kind  of  securities. 
This  fact  had  been  painfully  evident  for  the  past 
two  years.  It  was  likewise  true  that  Illinois  had 
done  her  part  in  bringing  about  this  condition  of 
affairs.  In  addition  to  the  canal  bonds  the  state 
had  already  placed  upon  the  market,  in  her  efforts 
to  finance  an  elaborate  scheme  of  internal  im- 
provements, evidences  of  indebtedness  of  more 
than  ^5,6oo,ooo.1  It  was  with  the  greatest  diffi- 
culty that  the  state  was  able  to  pay  the  interest 
on  its  debts  on  January  i,  1841.  Under  such 
circumstances  a  new  loan  could  be  floated  only 
at  an  enormous  discount.  With  property  values 

tween  March  I  and  November  I,  1840,  the  pay- 
ments were  $832,888.20,  and  between  November  I, 
1840  and  March  I,  1841  they  were  $280,940.46.  Seventh 
Annual  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  pp.  65,  113. 

lOn  December  7,  1842,  the  Internal  Improvement 
debt  was  $5,614,196.94.  As  work  on  these  improve- 
ments had  been  stopped  in  1840,  the  debt  had  not 
increased  much  after  that  date.  Illinois  State  Reports, 
1 842-3,  p.  7. 


S2       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

depressed  and  the  people  clamoring  for  reduced 
taxation,  the  General  Assembly  was  unable  to  do 
more  than  to  provide  for  an  additional  tax  of 
ten  cents  on  the  #100  worth  of  property  to  be  set 
apart  exclusively  as  an  "interest  tax,"  establish 
a  minimum  taxable  valuation  of  three  dollars  an 
acre  on  all  lands  subject  to  taxation  in  the  state,1 
and  authorize  the  sale  of  enough  bonds  at  what- 
ever they  would  bring  in  the  market  to  meet  the 
interest  on  the  public  debt  for  the  next  two  years.2 
The  failure  of  the  General  Assembly  to  provide 
further  means  for  the  maintenance  of  the  work 
was  interpreted  as  the  abandonment  of  the  canal 
to  its  fate.  As  many  of  the  contractors  as  were 
able  to  abandon  their  work  without  too  heavy 
financial  losses  to  themselves  did  so.  Others 
continued  for  a  time,  but  reduced  their  forces  as 
rapidly  as  conditions  would  warrant.  There 
were  only  two  possible  sources  of  payment  to  the 
contractors,  namely,  state  bonds  and  warrants 
drawn  against  a  future  canal  fund.  Both  of  these 
methods  were  resorted  to.  Such  contractors  as 
were  able  to  meet  their  own  expenses  and  wait  for 
their  pay  accepted  the  bonds  until  the  depreciation 

lEy  the  act  of  February  21,  1841. 

2 In  order  to  raise  the  necessary  funds  to  pay  the 
interest  on  the  state  debt  July  I,  1841,  $804,000  in 
interest  bearing  state  bonds  were  hypothecated  with 
Macallister  and  Stebbins  of  New  York  as  a  guarantee 
of  a  loan  of  $321,600.  From  this  time  on  no  more 
interest  was  paid  on  the  state  debt  till  the  trustees  took 
charge  of  the  canal  in  1845. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  53 

became  so  great  as  to  render  this  means  of  pay- 
ment impracticable.1  The  alternative  method  of 
payment  was  introduced  by  the  commissioners  in 
May,  1841,  in  order  to  relieve  the  embarrassments 
of  those  contractors  whose  finances  did  not  enable 
them  to  meet  their  accruing  obligations.  To  the 
extent  of  the  amount  due  them,  the  contractors 
were  permitted  to  draw  orders  in  favor  of  their 
creditors  against  the  commissioners,  which  orders 
became  negotiable  after  having  been  formally 
accepted  and  recorded  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Board.2  For  a  time  these  orders  served  as  cur- 
rency along  the  canal.  But,  although  receivable 
in  payment  for  canal  lands  at  the  sale  to  be  held 
in  November,  1841,  the  issue  soon  exceeded  the 
demand  and  depreciation  began.  Naturally,  the 
depreciation  of  this  medium  of  exchange  soon  put 
a  stop  to  that  method  of  payment  and  all  work 
on  the  canal  was  at  an  end  except  in  the  case  of  a 
few  contractors  who  were  willing  to  bear  their 
own  burdens  and  await  a  better  day  for  their 
compensation.3 

1  $197,000  was  paid  in  this  way  in  the  latter  part  of 
1841  and  early  part  of  1842.     Illinois  Senate  Reports, 
1842-3,  pp.  1 6,  172. 

2  Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  Commissioners  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  p.  115. 

3  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  p.  16.     By  the  act  of 
February  21,  1843,  provision  was  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  damages  sustained  by  the  suspension  of  work, 
and  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1843,  all  claims  against  the 
canal  were  to  be  investigated  and,  when  approved, 


54       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

After  the  failure  of  the  State  Bank  in  February, 
1842,  the  financial  affairs  of  the  state  seemed  to  be 
in  a  hopeless  condition.  The  state  debt  was  near- 
ing  the  #14,000,000  mark,  and  was  increasing  at 
the  rate  of  #830,000  a  year  from  the  one  item  of 
accumulating  interest.1  The  credit  of  the  state 
had  sunk  so  low  that  in  June  its  obligations  sold 
at  public  auction  in  Chicago  at  from  eighteen 
and  one-fourth  cents  to  twenty-four  cents  on  the 
dollar,  while  the  bills  of  the  defunct  State  Bank 
brought  thirty-eight  and  one-fourth  cents.2  There 
were  not  lacking  those  who  openly  advocated 
a  policy  of  repudiation. 

In  this  crisis,  the  canal  seemed  the  only  hope  of 
the  state.3  A  completed  canal  would  aid  the 
state  finances  both  directly  and  indirectly.  It 
would  give  direct  aid  by  yielding  a  revenue  which 
would  offset  a  portion  of  the  interest  charges  which 
the  state  was  then  unable  to  meet.  Indirectly, 
it  would  bring  larger  revenues  to  the  treasury  by 
increasing  the  basis  of  taxation,  first,  through  the 

they  and  the  accrued  interest  should  be  charged  against 
the  fund  of  #230,000  appropriated  for  settlement  with 
the  contractors. 

^n  December  I,  1842,  the  debt  amounted  to 
#13,836,379.65,  and  the  interest  for  the  year  was 
#830,182.77.  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  p.  7. 

2  Chicago  Democrat,  June  8,  1842. 

•Report  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Canal  and 
Canal  Lands,  in  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  pp. 
90-91 ;  and  Report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Finance, 
in  Illinois  House  Reports,  1842-3,  pp.  6-7. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  55 

raising  of  property  values  by  the  capitalization  of 
the  diminution  in  transportation  charges;  and, 
secondly,  by  making  the  state  a  more  attractive 
place  for  settlement  and  investment  through  this 
provision  for  lightening  its  financial  burdens, 
which  would  tend  to  draw  the  population  and 
capital  that  naurally  shun  a  debt-ridden  com- 
munity with  its  exorbitant  taxes.  The  increased 
land  values  resulting  from  the  opening  of  the  canal 
would  also  enable  the  state  to  materially  diminish 
the  burden  of  the  debt  by  liquidating  a  large  por- 
tion of  it  through  the  sale  of  canal  lands.  In 
short,  the  difference  between  a  completed  and  an 
uncompleted  canal  meant  the  difference  between  a 
solvent  and  an  insolvent  state.  These  facts  were 
clearly  enough  perceived,1  and  there  was  no  lack 
of  desire  on  the  part  of  the  state  officials  to  bring 
the  work  to  its  final  consummation,  but  that 
would  involve  an  additional  expenditure  of  more 
than  $3.000,000,  and  in  the  insolvent  condition 
of  the  state  the  raising  of  such  a  sum  was  clearly 
impossible.2 

In  this  extremity  the  friends  of  the  canal  be- 
thought them  of  the  old  "shallow  cut"  plan.  It 
was  estimated  that  $1,600,000  would  suffice  to 
complete  the  work  on  this  plan,  and  it  was  deemed 

1  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1842-3,  pp.  90-91. 

2  William  Gooding,  the  chief  engineer  of  the  canal, 
estimated   that  the   sum   of  $3,098,169.29  would   be 
required  to  complete  the  work  in  accordance  with  the 
plan   on  which    it  was   being    constructed.       Seventh 
Annual  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  p.  66. 


56       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

practicable  to  raise  this  sum  on  a  pledge  of  the 
canal  and  the  canal  lands  and  revenues.  The 
principal  holders  of  canal  bonds  in  New  York  also 
looked  upon  the  plan  as  feasible.1  Consequently, 
by  the  act  of  February  21,  1843,  the  Governor  was 
authorized  to  negotiate  a  loan  for  the  amount  and 
to  secure  its  payment  by  a  deed  of  trust.  The 
canal  and  all  its  property  were  to  be  turned  over  to 
three  trustees,  two  of  whom  should  be  chosen  by 
the  subscribers  to  the  new  loan  and  one  appointed 
by  the  Governor.  These  trustees  were  authorized 
to  hold  and  manage  the  canal  for  the  benefit  of  the 
creditors,2  under  such  restrictions  as  would  safe- 
guard the  interests  of  the  state.3 

Austin  Butterfield  of  Chicago  is  said  to  have  first 
suggested  the  plan  to  Arthur  Bronson  of  New  York, 
one  of  the  large  holders  of  canal  bonds.  Whether 
this  statement  be  true  or  not,  the  friends  of  the  canal 
eagerly  took  up  the  idea.  In  the  summer  of  1842, 
Michael  Ryan,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Canal 
and  Canal  Lands  in  the  Illinois  Senate,  visited  New 
York  and  discussed  the  plan  with  the  leading  bond- 
holders, who  took  kindly  to  the  idea. 

2  In  the  interest  of  the  subscribers  to  the  new  loan 
the  act  directed  the  disbursement  of  the  income  of  the 
canal,  after  the  payment  of  the  incidental  expenses, 
as  follows:   first,  interest  on  the  loan;  second,  interest 
on  other  canal  bonds  held  by  subscribers  to  the  loan; 
third,  interest  on  canal  bonds  held  by  non-subscribing 
bond-holders;  and  fourth,   payment  of  the  principal 
of  the  loan. 

3  Among  the  important  provisions  of  the  act  safe- 
guarding the  interests  of  the  state  were  those  limiting 
the  conditions  of  the  sale  or  lease  of  the  lands,  lots 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  57 

Governor  Ford  appointed  Charles  Oakley  and 
Michael  Ryan  as  agents  to  negotiate  the  new  loan. 
Having  first  received  assurances  that  the  American 
creditors  would  subscribe  their  proportion,  Oakley 
and  Ryan  hastened  to  Europe;  but  the  foreign 
creditors  were  less  inclined  to  take  a  favorable 
view  of  the  proposed  loan  than  those  in  America 
had  been.1  However,  it  was  finally  arranged  that 
Abbott  Lawrence,  Thomas  H.  Ward,  and  William 
Sturgis  of  Boston  should  designate  two  competent 
men  to  examine  the  conditions  of  the  work  and 
report  to  the  creditors  the  value  of  the  property 
and  the  amount  of  debt,  including  accrued  interest, 
charged  against  it.  This  service  was  performed 
by  Ex-Governor  John  Davis  of  Massachusetts 
and  Captain  William  H.  Swift  of  the  engineering 
corps  of  the  United  States  Army.  During  the 
winter  of  1843-4  these  men  made  a  personal  in- 
vestigation of  the  condition  and  the  possibilities 
of  the  canal.2  Their  report  to  the  creditors,  dated 
March  I,  1844,  was  entirely  confirmatory  of  the 
reports  of  Ryan  and  Oakley.  They  found  that  on 

and  water-power  of  the  canal.     For  the  provisions  of 
the  act  in  full,  see,  The  Laws  of  Illinois,  1843,  pp.  54-61. 

xThe  attitude  of  the  European  creditors  in  1843  was 
fully  set  forth  in  a  letter  of  Baring  Brothers  &  Co. 
to  Charles  Oakley,  October  18,  1844,  which  was  later 
published  in  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  Docu- 
ments, pp.  24-29.  Also  in  a  letter  of  Charles  Oakley 
to  J.  S.  Zieber,  dated  at  London,  July  18,  1843,  and 
published  in  the  Chicago  Democrat,  August  23,  1843. 

2  Illinois  House  Reports,  1845,  p.  315. 


S8       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

January  I,  1844,  the  total  canal  debt  was  $5,390,- 
697.57.  Offsetting  against  this  debt  the  sum  of 
$150,209.83  redeemed  and  in  the  contingent  fund, 
and  $393,034.91  of  securities  held  against  canal 
lands  sold,  the  net  debt  was  found  to  be  $4,847,- 
402. 83. 1  On  the  side  of  assets  the  state  could 
offer  besides  the  canal  230,476  acres  of  land  which 
Davis  and  Swift  estimated  would  be  worth  ten 
dollars  an  acre  at  the  completion  of  the  canal,  and 
3,491  lots  in  the  cities  and  towns  of  Chicago,  Lock- 
port,  Ottawa  and  La  Salle,  valued  at  $1,900,000. 
The  canal  itself  was  considered  to  be  worth 
$5,000,000.  In  addition  to  this  $9,204,670  of 
physical  property,  it  was  estimated  that  the 
rentals  for  water  power  would  aggregate  from 
$75,000  to  $100,000  a  year,  and  that  the  tolls  for 
the  second  year  of  the  operation  of  the  canal 
would  reach  $363, 865. 25.2  In  view  of  these  facts 
the  report  recommended  the  acceptance  of  the 
loan  as  an  entirely  safe  financial  proposition. 

The  experience  of  European  holders  of  American 
internal  improvement  bonds,  however,  had  not 
been  a  pleasant  one.  For  the  most  part  they  had 

1  Davis  and  Swift's  Report  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal,   1844,  pp.   13-14.     There  are  some  slight   dis- 
crepancies in  the  figures  in  the  report,  but  they  seem 
to  be  due  to  either  clerical  or  typographical  errors  and 
do  not  affect  its  importance  materially. 

2  Davis  and  Swiff  s  Report  of  the  Illinois  and  Michi- 
gan Canal,  1844,  p.  42.     This  estimate  of  the  earning 
capacity  of  the  canal  was  far  too  high,  as  shown  by 
the  earnings  when  completed.    The  tolls  for  the  second 
year  of  operation  were  $118,375. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  59 

been  unable  to  get  interest  on  their  bonds,  and 
these  were  consequently  greatly  depreciated  in 
value.  But  the  holders  of  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal  bonds  were  reassured  by  the  correspondence 
of  the  report  with  the  assertions  of  Ryan  and 
Oakley  and  more  particularly  by  the  personal 
statements  of  Ex-Governor  Davis,  who  visited 
London  in  the  summer  of  1844  on  invitation  of 
Baring  Brothers  &  Company  and  Magniac,  Jardine 
&  Company,  representing  the  creditors.  As  a  re- 
sult of  the  report  and  of  these  conferences,  the 
European  creditors  agreed  to  take  the  full  amount 
of  the  new  bond  issue  apportioned  to  them  on  the 
basis  of  their  holdings  of  the  earlier  issues,1  pro- 
vided the  state  would  restore  the  interest  tax  which 
had  been  repealed  in  1 843 .2  The  state  readily  com- 
plied with  this  very  reasonable  condition.3  By  the 

1  It  was  expected  that  the  holders  of  earlier  issues 
would  subscribe  to  this  one  to  the  extent  of  thirty-two 
per  cent  of  their  holdings.     This  would  enable  them  to 
register  their  old  bonds  under  the  act  of  February  21, 
1843,  thereby  making  them  a  sort  of  second  mortgage 
on  the  canal  and  its  property  and  revenues. 

2  Illinois  Senate  Reports,  1844,  pp.  89-96. 

3  That  the  land  owners  were  not  all  averse  to  such  a 
tax  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  on  January  18,  1844, 
John  Wentworth  sent  from  Washington  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of   Illinois   a   petition  from   holders   of  Illinois 
land  to  the  amount  of  nearly  $1,000,000  asking  that 
the  property  in  the  state  be  taxed  to  raise  funds  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  state  debt,  reasoning  that  an 
improvement  in  the  financial  condition  of  the  state 
would  react  on  property  values.     Wentworth's  letter 
in  the  Chicago  Democrat,  January  31,  1844. 


6o       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

act  of  March  I,  1845,  provision  was  made  for  an 
interest  tax  of  one  and  one-half  mills  on  each 
dollar  of  property  values. 

In  the  meantime  the  creditors  had  subscribed 
the  remainder  of  the  loan  and  elected  Captain 
Swift  of  Washington  and  David  Leavitt  of  New 
York  as  trustees  and  the  Governor  had  appointed 
General  Jacob  Fry  as  the  State  member.  In  June, 
these  trustees  assumed  the  trust  and  began  active 
preparations  for  resuming  the  work  on  the  canal. 
On  June  21  they  called  for  the  first  installment 
of  the  new  loan  to  be  paid  on  September  20 
following.1 

While  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  funds  with 
which  to  carry  on  the  work,  the  necessary  prepara- 
tions for  its  resumption  were  under  way.  In 
accordance  with  estimates  submitted  by  Charles 
B.  Fisk  and  William  Gooding,  the  former  con- 
tractors were  allotted  the  work  on  their  old  sec- 
tions,2 July  22,  and  on  August  18  those  sections 
not  preempted  by  the  former  contractors  were  let 
to  the  "lowest  responsible  bidder."3  These  con- 
tracts evidenced  the  change  in  the  economic  con- 
dition  of  the  region  since  1836.  In  that  year 

Captain  Swift's  Report  to  the  Creditors,  1849,  p.  5. 
Also  Chicago  Democrat,  June  25,  1845. 

2  Section  seventeen  of  the  act  of  February  21,  1843, 
provided  that  on  resumption  of  work  on  the  canal 
former  contractors   should  have  priority  of  right  in 
securing  the  contracts  on  their  old  sections,  but  on  an 
estimate   to   be   made   by   the   chief   engineer   of   the 
Board  of  Trustees. 

3  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1845,  P-  3- 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  61 

the  country  generally  was  on  the  crest  of  the 
wave  of  prosperity.  High  prices  prevailed.  This 
condition  was  magnified  in  the  region  of  the 
canal  with  its  suddenly  acquired  population  and 
its  undeveloped  resources,  and  the  necessity  of 
importing  all  needed  supplies.  In  1845  the  coun- 
try was  slowly  recovering  from  a  period  of  in- 
dustrial depression.  Prices  were  relatively  low. 
Food  supplies  were  particularly  cheap  in  the 
region  of  the  canal,  where  they  were  now  pro- 
duced in  abundance.1  As  a  consequence,  although 
the  new  estimates  were  far  below  the  earlier  ones, 
the  trustees  experienced  no  difficulty  in  finding 
contractors  who  would  undertake  the  work  at 
less  than  the  estimated  cost  of  completing  it.2 

After  the  period  of  abandonment,  with  the 
consequent  deterioration  of  the  unfinished  work, 
considerable  time  was  consumed  in  general  repairs 


following  comparison,  of  prices  was  made  by 
Davis  and  Swift  during  their  investigation  of  the  canal: 

Cost  in        Cost  in 
1836  1843 

Labor  of  man  per  month  (av.)  ......  $  40.00     $16.00 

Horses,  each  ....................   100.00      60.00 

Oxen,  per  yoke  ..................     80.00       45  .00 

Beef,  per  cwt  ....................       6.00         3.00 

Flour,  per  barrel  .................      1  1  .  oo         3  .  50 

Pork,  per  barrel  .................  22.00  8.00 

Other  articles  had  been  proportionately  reduced  in  price. 

Report  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  1844,  p.  103. 
2  Portions  of  the  work  estimated  at  $171,700  were 

let  for  $148,100,   and  feeder  contracts   estimated   at 

$141,500  were  let  for  $133,200.     Report  of  the  Canal 

Trustees,  1847,  p.  26. 


62        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

and  preparation  for  the  resumption  of  the  actual 
work  of  construction.1  The  act  of  February  21, 
1843,  required  the  completion  of  the  canal  within 
three  years  after  it  should  be  turned  over  to  the 
trustees.  In  spite  of  delays  caused  by  floods  and 
by  an  unusual  amount  of  sickness  among  the 
laborers,  the  work  was  completed  in  the  allotted 
time  and  was  opened  for  navigation  in  April,  1848. 
For  the  next  twenty-three  years  the  efforts  of 
the  trustees  were  devoted  to  building  up  the  traffic 
of  the  canal  and  to  the  payment  of  the  canal  debt. 
The  expenditures  on  the  work  before  it  passed  into 
the  hands  of  the  trustees  amounted  to  $5,039, 
248.04,  of  which  $4,674,637.23  had  been  paid  for 
construction  and  $364,610.81  for  contingent  ex- 
penses.2 The  trustees  expended  $i,429,6o6.2i3  in 
completing  the  canal  and  constructing  feeders  to 
furnish  the  water  supply,  rendered  necessary  by 
the  adoption  of  the  "shallow  cut  plan"  which 
raised  the  canal  on  the  summit  level  twelve  feet 
above  the  datum  line  of  Lake  Michigan.4  But 

1  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1847,  p.  26. 

2  Eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Acting  Commissioner 
of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  p.  3.     Cf.  Report 
of  the   Secretary   of   War,   1887,   Volume   II,    Part   3, 
pp.  2146-2148,  which  gives  the  expenditures  by  the 
commissioners  as  $5,133,062.21    and  by  the  trustees 
as  $1,424,619.29. 

3  Final  Report  of  the  Trustees,  1871,  p.  9. 

4  Three    feeders    were    constructed:     (i)   from    the 
Fox  River  at  Dayton  to  Ottawa;  (2)  from  the  Kankakee 
River  to  the  Dresden  level;   (3)   from  the   Calumet 
River  through  the  "Sag"  to  the  Summit  level. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  63 

these  sums  did  not  comprehend  the  entire  canal 
debt.1  Aside  from  the  outstanding  bonds  to  the 
amount  of  $5,383,000,  the  debt  was  composed 
of  interest-bearing  canal  scrip,  non-interest-bear- 
ing canal  scrip,  ninety  day  circulating  checks, 
balances  due  to  contractors,  damages  awarded  for 
injuries  sustained  by  the  canal's  crossing  private 
property,  and  accumulated  interest.2 

The  funds  with  which  to  meet  the  accruing 
interest  on  this  debt  and  with  which  ultimately  to 
liquidate  the  debt  itself  were  gradually  accumu- 
lated from  the  sales  of  lands,  from  tolls  derived 
from  the  operation  of  the  canal,  from  rents  of 
lands  and  water-power,  from  interest  on  the  canal 
funds  when  deposited  with  the  banks,  from  inter- 
est on  the  unpaid  installments  on  the  lands  sold, 
and  from  a  few  minor  sources.3 

The  burden  of  the  liquidation  of  the  debt  was 
increased,  first,  by  the  length  of  time  which  elapsed 
between  the  beginning  of  the  work  and  the  final 
payment  of  the  bonds  and  accounts.  The  trustees 
paid  $2,155,622.38  in  the  discharge  of  the  arrears 
of  interest  on  the  registered  bonds,  and  $2,457, 

1  Final  Report  of  the  Trustees,  1871,  p.  9. 

2  Eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Acting  Commissioner 
of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  pp.  7,  8. 

3  Some  of  these  minor  sources  of  income  were,  the 
sale  of  wood,  timber  and  stone,  the  sale  of  old  machin- 
ery and  implements  which  the  state  acquired  when 
it  settled  with  contractors  who  were  forced  to  abandon 
their  work  in  1842-3,  the  lease  of  lots,  and  the  ad- 
vantages   occasionally    derived    from    the    course    of 
exchange. 


64       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

276.46  may  be  charged  to  the  operating  expenses 
of  the  canal  while  used  as  a  fiscal  agent  for  the 
payment  of  the  debt.1  Secondly,  the  burden  of 
the  debt  was  increased  by  the  monetary  and  bank- 
ing conditions  prevailing  in  the  country  during 
the  period  of  the  trust.  Between  1848  and  1863, 
$14,563.52  was  lost  through  "wild-cat  currency," 
counterfeit  bills,  and  bank  failures,  and  between 
the  former  year  and  1871  the  sum  of  $370,864.42 
was  expended  for  premiums  on  gold  with  which  to 
pay  the  interest  and  principal  of  canal  bonds  held 
abroad.2 

By  the  close  of  April,  1871,  the  entire  debt  had 
been  liquidated  except  $13,000  of  the  bonds  which 
their  holders  had  failed  to  present  for  payment.3 
On  April  30,  the  trustees  rendered  their  final 
report  and  the  trust  was  dissolved,  at  which  time 
they  turned  over  to  the  state  a  cash  balance  of 
$95, 742. 41. 4  In  the  main,  the  finances  had  been 

1  Final  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1871,  p.  9. 

2  Prior  to  1863  payments  on  bonds  held  in  London 
had  been  made  in  New  York  at  the  rate  of  exchange 
at  which  the  best  bankers'  bills  on  London  could  be 
purchased    on    the    day    of    payment.     This    method 
sufficed  so  long  as  gold  and  paper  had  the  same  value 
in  the  money  market.     When  the  difference  between 
them  became  material,  payments  were  made  in  coin. 
Swift's  Report  to  the  Creditors,  1865,  p.  7. 

3  These  bonds  are  still  outstanding  and  are  carried 
in  the  Auditor's  accounts  as  "called  in  by  the  Gover- 
nor's   proclamation    and    not    surrendered."     Illinois 
Auditor's  Report,  1906,  p.  vii. 

4  Final  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1871,  p.  9. 


FINANCE  AND  CONSTRUCTION  65 

well  managed  during  the  continuance  of  the  trust. 
$11,009,507.41  had  passed  through  the  hands  of 
the  trustees  with  no  greater  loss  than  the  $14,563 
.52,  which  was  lost  through  bad  currency  and 
banking  conditions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  funds 
had  been  so  managed  as  to  yield  $183,303.97  from 
interest  and  exchange. 

In  the  end  it  was  found  that  the  anticipation 
with  which  the  work  was  undertaken,  namely, 
that  the  canal  lands  and  revenues  would  pay  the 
cost  of  construction,  had  been  well  founded. 
However,  because  of  the  length  of  the  period 
covered  by  the  work  of  construction  and  by  the 
acquisition  of  the  funds  necessary  to  defray  the 
expenses  incident  to  the  construction  and  the  cost 
of  management  and  maintenance,  the  total  ex- 
penditures had  been  increased  far  beyond  the 
expected  sum. 


Chapter  III 
MANAGEMENT 

The  administrative  organization  for  the  manage- 
ment of  the  affairs  of  the  canal  has  always  been  a 
simple  one  and  in  keeping  with  the  organization 
and  methods  employed  in  the  management  of 
other  state  enterprises  in  Illinois.  With  a  single 
brief  exception,  the  direct  management  has  been 
in  the  hands  of  a  commission  or  board.1  That 
exception  was  during  the  suspension  of  work  on 
the  canal  between  1843  and  the  beginning  of  the 
trust  in  June,  1845.  The  management  was  then 
in  the  hands  of  one  of  the  commissioners,  known 
as  the  acting  commissioner,  assisted  by  the  secre- 
tary, an  engineer,  and  an  agent  for  the  protection 
of  the  canal  lands  and  other  property.2  Prior  to 

^his  statement  ignores  the  period  from  the  abolition 
of  the  board  of  commissioners  by  the  act  of  March  I, 
1833  till  the  creation  of  a  new  commission  by  the  act 
of  February  10,  1835,  during  which  time  there  was 
no  administrative  machinery  for  the  management  of 
canal  affairs.  During  this  period  the  project  was 
temporarily  abandoned. 

2  The  act  of  March  2,  1843  provided  for  the  discharge 
of  all  officers  and  employees  except  these  three.  These 
were  authorized  to  settle  with  the  contractors,  in  so  far 
as  they  could  obtain  the  necessary  funds,  and  to  protect 
the  canal  property.  Laws  of  Illinois,  1843,  p.  62. 
66 


MANAGEMENT  67 

this  arrangement  the  board  of  commissioners  had 
usually  consisted  of  three  men,1  chosen  biennially, 
part  of  the  time  by  the  Governor  with  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Senate  and  the  remainder  of  the  time 
by  the  joint  action  of  the  two  houses  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.2  During  the  continuance  of  the 
trust,  the  board  of  trustees  consisted  of  two  mem- 
bers elected  biennially  by  the  canal  creditors  and 
a  third  appointed  by  the  Governor.3  Since  the 
termination  of  the  trust  in  1871,  the  three  commis- 
sioners have  been  appointed  by  the  Governor  with 
the  ratification  of  the  Senate.  The  result  has  been 
thatthe  appointments  haveusually  been  determined 
by  party  service  or  political  expediency  rather  than 
by  any  special  qualifications  for  the  management  of 
the  canal.  In  politics  and  in  law  the  commissioners 
are  regarded  as  part  of  the  state  administration.4 

xBy  the  act  of  February  14,  1823,  the  number  was 
established  at  five.  The  act  of  January  22,  1829, 
reduced  it  to  three.  The  act  of  February  10,  1835, 
again  provided  for  a  board  of  five  but  that  of  March 
2,  1837  again  fixed  the  number  at  three  and  it  has 
since  remained  that  number. 

2  The  members  of  the  first  board  in  1823  were  named 
in  the  act  by  which  it  was  created.    The  act  of  March 
2,  1837,  placed  the  election  of  the  commissioners  in  the 
hands  of  the  General  Assembly. 

3  The  trustees  who  received  the  deed  of  trust  were 
Captain  William  H.  Swift  of  Washington  and  David 
Leavitt  of  New  York,   elected   by   the   creditors   at 
New  York,  May  27,  1845,  and  Jacob  Fry,  appointed 
by  the  Governor  of  Illinois,  June  10,  1845. 

4  The  legal  status  of  the  commissioners  is  determined 
by  chapter  19,  section  3,  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  Illinois. 


68       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

From  time  to  time  special  appointments  have 
been  made  for  special  services,  independent  of  the 
board  of  commissioners.1  The  most  important 
of  these  special  services  was  that  of  the  sale  of 
canal  bonds  during  the  period  of  construction. 
These  sales  were  always  conducted  by  the  Gover- 
nor or  by  special  agents  appointed  by  him.  The 
boards  of  appraisers  which  determined  the  mini- 
mum selling  price  of  each  lot  or  tract  of  land,  were 
appointed  by  the  judge  of  the  circuit  court  within 
whose  jurisdiction  the  lot  or  tract  lay.2  In  addi- 
tion to  these,  it  was  a  common  occurrence  for  the 
General  Assembly  to  appoint  special  commissions 
to  investigate  claims  against  the  state  growing  out 
of  the  construction  or  management  of  the  canal 
and  for  other  specific  services.3 

The  subordinate  officials  and  employees  of  the 
canal  have  usually  been  appointed  by  the  board  or 
subject  to  its  approval.4  During  the  development 
of  the  project,  the  offices  of  secretary  and  treasurer 
were  filled  by  members  of  the  board  and  since  1873 
the  same  policy  has  been  pursued.  But,  from 


1  Laws  of  Illinois,  1847,  p.  23. 

2  Ibid.,  23. 

8  As  an  example  of  such  appointments  may  be  men- 
tioned the  two  agents  appointed  by  joint  vote  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  protect  the  canal  lands  from 
trespass  and  to  grant  permits  for  residence  on  canal 
lands.  Laws  of  Illinois,  1837,  pp.  44-48. 

4  Public  Laws  of  Illinois,  1871-2,  p.  213;  Laws  of 
Illinois,  1891,  p.  71;  Laws  of  Illinois,  1899,  p.  82. 


MANAGEMENT  69 

1837  to  1873  these  officials  were  appointed  by  the 
board  from  outside  its  membership.  Recently, 
the  employees  of  the  board  have  been  the  general 
superintendent,  the  chief  clerk  and  paymaster, 
the  land  agent,  the  attorney,  and  a  force  of  about 
twenty-five  clerks,  collectors  of  tolls,  lock  tenders, 
and  repair  men.1 

The  functions  of  the  board  have  varied  with  the 
changing  phases  of  the  canal  history.  In  the 
main,  however,  they  have  been  rather  narrowly 
restricted  by  legislative  action.  The  General 
Assembly  has  not  only  assumed  control  of  the 
general  policy  of  the  management,  but  it  has  oc- 
casionally, by  legislative  enactment,  directed  the 
action  of  the  board  in  specific  cases .  But,  in  strictly 
administrative  matters  the  board  has  usually  been 
permitted  to  exercise  discretionary  powers.  This 
has  been  particularly  true  in  recent  years.  With- 
in the  restrictions  laid  by  the  General  Assembly, 
the  board  has  managed  the  contracts  for  construc- 
tion and  repairs,  the  canal  finances  other  than 
the  bond  sales,  and  the  sales  and  leases  of  canal 
lands  and  water  power.  It  has  fixed  the  rate  of 
tolls  and  the  condition  under  which  the  canal  may 
be  used,  and  has  had  general  charge  of  the  canal 
interests. 

In  the  contracts  for  construction,  due  provision 
was  made  for  the  protection  of  the  interests  of  the 
state.  The  contracts  were  let  to  the  lowest  re- 

1A  list  of  the  officers  and  employees  of  the  canal 
on  November  30,  1915,  together  with  their  compen- 
sation, is  given  in  appendix  II. 


70       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

sponsible  bidder  only  after  the  conditions  under 
which  they  were  to  be  performed  had  been  widely 
advertised  both  in  Illinois  and  in  the  eastern  states, 
in  order  to  secure  the  widest  possible  competition 
among  contractors.1  In  the  earlier  of  these  con- 
tracts the  contra9tors  were  required  to  give  bond 
for  the  specific  performance  of  their  agreements. 
Later,  the  bond  was  not  required,  but  fifteen  per- 
cent of  the  amount  due  the  contractors  for  work 
done  was  withheld  till  the  completion  of  the  work 
in  accordance  with  the  specifications  in  the  con- 
tract.2 Although  several  of  the  contractors  lost 
heavily  and  some  of  them  were  compelled  to 
relinquish  their  contracts,  the  amounts  forfeited 
by  such  relinquishments  usually  reimbursed  the 
state  for  the  extra  expense  entailed  by  the  neces- 
sity of  making  a  new  contract,  frequently  at  a 
higher  figure. 

The  financial  management  of  the  canal  has 
generally  been  honest  and  reasonably  efficient, 
but  it  has  not  always  been  above  criticism  from 
the  standpoint  of  policy  adopted  or  methods  used. 
During  the  period  of  construction,  the  ever  present 
financial  problem  led  to  the  trial  of  unsound 
financial  expedients,  some  of  which  have  been 
discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter.  The  re- 
sponsibility for  these  expedients  rests  partly  with 
the  board  and  partly  with  the  General  Assembly. 
The  issuance  of  canal  scrip  is  a  case  in  point.  As 

1Laws  of  Illinois,   1835,  p.  226;  and,  Report  of  the 
Canal  Trustees,  1846,  p.  3. 
2  Report  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1836,  p.  n. 


MANAGEMENT  71 

is  usual  in  such  cases,  the  scrip  was  overissued  and 
consequently  suffered  a  heavy  depreciation,  cast- 
ing an  undue  burden  upon  the  men  least  able 
to  bear  it,  namely,  the  laborers.1  The  General 
Assembly  which  authorized  such  a  course  was 
not  blameless,  but  the  administration  of  the  act 
lay  with  the  commissioners.  The  act  was  rather 
permissive  than  mandatory  and  the  amount  of 
the  issue  was  entirely  within  their  control.  It 
may  be  urged,  however,  in  extenuation  of  the 
policy,  that  no  other  means  was  available  at  the 
time  for  continuing  the  work  on  the  canal  and 
that  a  suspension  of  operations  would  have  been 
much  more  disastrous  to  the  contractors  and  cer- 
tainly so  to  all  the  laborers  who  could  not  readily 
find  work  elsewhere,  than  the  depreciation  of  the 
scrip  proved  to  be.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  in- 
evitable result  of  the  policy  adopted  was  the 
practical  reduction  of  the  wages  of  the  laborers 
and  the  development  of  a  class  of  land  speculators 
at  the  expense  of  the  laboring  men  who  were 
forced  by  the  necessities  of  life  to  cash  their  scrip 
for  whatever  it  would  bring.  Men  with  ready 
money  were  enabled  to  purchase  scrip  at  a  heavy 
discount  and  use  it  in  payment  for  canal  lots  or 
lands  at  face  value. 

:The  contractors  were  paid  in  scrip  but  they  were 
able  to  pass  it  on  to  the  laborers  in  payment  of  wages. 
The  laborers  either  used  it  in  making  purchases  of 
necessaries  of  life,  the  price  of  which  was  raised  to  cover 
the  depreciation  of  the  scrip,  or  it  was  sold  to  speculat- 
ors for  cash  at  a  discount.  In  either  case,  the  laborer 
bore  the  chief  part  of  the  burden  of  depreciation. 


72        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

If  the  board  was  led  to  dangerous  lengths  in 
the  issue  of  canal  scrip,  it  showed  greater  con- 
servatism than  its  legislative  master  in  meeting  the 
problem  of  "wild-cat"  money.  During  the  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments  following  the  panic 
of  1837  and  again  during  the  civil  war,  the  canal 
revenues  suffered  much  from  the  receipt  of  "un- 
current"  money.1  The  act  of  July  21,  1837, 
required  the  canal  commissioners  to  accept  in 
payment  of  bills  to  the  canal,  the  notes  of  either 
the  State  Bank  of  Illinois  or  the  Bank  of  Illinois 
or  those  of  any  other  bank  whose  notes  were 
accepted  and  credited  as  cash  by  the  bank  where 
the  canal  funds  were  kept.  While  the  losses  to 
the  canal  from  this  source  were  probably  pro- 
portionately no  heavier  than  those  of  the  average 
business  firm,  they  became  of  considerable  im- 
portance.2 To  relieve  the  treasury  as  much  as 
possible  from  this  evil,  the  trustees  ordered  that 
"specie  funds  only,  or  the  equivalent  thereof" 
should  be  received  in  payment  of  tolls.3  The 
natural  result  was  a  nominal  increase  of  earnings 
which  practically  offset  the  losses  from  the  neces- 
sary acceptance  of  depreciated  money.  From 
1860  to  1862  the  tolls  increased  95.34  per  cent 

1  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1862,  pp.  5-6. 

2  The  actual  loss  sustained  during  the  year  1861,  in  the 
conversion  of  notes  into  specie  values  was  $2,225.53,  but 
the  board  held  deposits  of  canal  funds  to  the  amount 
of  $32,605.40  on  which  it  estimated  there  would    be 
an  average  loss  of  50  per  cent.     Report  of  the  Trustees 
of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  1862,  p.  5. 

•The  resolution  was  adopted  May  27,  1861. 


MANAGEMENT  73 

while  the  traffic  for  the  same  period  increased 
83.32  per  cent.1  The  establishment  of  the  national 
banking  system  and  the  enforced  retirement  of  the 
circulation  of  all  other  banks,  effectually  removed 
the  danger  of  losses  from  "uncurrent"  money. 

When  the  board  of  trustees  made  its  final  report 
on  April  30,  1871,  and  turned  the  canal  and  its 
property  back  to  the  state,  the  financial  sky 
seemed  to  be  entirely  clear.  The  canal  debts 
were  fully  paid  and  a  surplus  of  $95,742.41  was 
turned  into  the  state  treasury.  This  sum  was 
regarded  as  but  an  earnest  of  the  revenues  to  be 
derived  from  the  operation  of  the  canal.  The 
problem  of  financial  management  for  the  future 
was  assumed  to  be  the  simple  one  of  collecting  the 
revenues,  paying  the  expenses  of  operation  and 
repairs  and  turning  over  the  surplus  to  the  treasury 
of  the  state.  As  the  revenue  for  the  preceding 
ten  years  had  exceeded  the  gross  expenditures  for 
the  same  period  by  $1,244,048,  such  an  assumption 
seemed  well  founded.2  The  history  of  the  suc- 
ceeding years,  however,  did  not  give  so  much  cause 
for  optimism.  In  the  succeeding  decade,  the  tolls 
exceeded  the  expenditures  by  only  $320,199  and 
the  following  decade  showed  a  deficit  of  $211,039. 
In  fact,  the  expenditures  have  exceeded  the  tolls 
regularly  since  1879.  During  all  these  years  up 


statistics  from  which  these  percentages  have 
been  derived  may  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  any 
recent  report  of  the  canal  commissioners. 

2  This  sum  does  not  include  a  small  annual  income 
from  rentals,  the  amount  of  which  is  not  obtainable. 


74       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

to  1903,  the  General  Assembly  made  biennial 
appropriations  from  the  state  treasury  to  cover  the 
deficits,  under  the  guise  of  appropriations  for  the 
improvement  of  navigation.  In  1903,  it  appro- 
priated $152,950  to  make  needed  repairs  and  to 
maintain  the  canal  in  navigable  condition  for  the 
next  biennium.1  In  the  circuit  court  of  Sanga- 
mon  County,  Richard  E.  Burke  sought  an  injunc- 
tion restraining  the  commissioners  from  using  the 
appropriation,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  been 
made  in  violation  of  the  following  provision  of  the 
constitution  of  1870:  "The  general  assembly 
shall  never  loan  the  credit  of  the  state,  or  make 
appropriations  from  the  treasury  thereof,  in  aid  of 
railroads  or  canals:  Provided,  that  any  surplus 
earnings  of  any  canal  may  be  appropriated  for  its 
enlargement  or  extension."  2  The  case  was  carried 


appropriation  was  made  up  of  three  items: 
$50,000  a  year  for  the  biennium  for  maintenance  of  the 
canal  in  navigable  condition,  $42,950  for  the  main- 
tenance and  operation  of  the  pumping  station  at 
Bridgeport,  and  $10,000  for  dredging  the  steamboat 
channel  and  basin  at  La  Salle. 

2  The  entire  section  is  as  follows:  "The  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  shall  never  be  sold  or  leased  until  the 
specific  proposition  for  the  sale  or  lease  thereof  shall 
first  have  been  submitted  to  a  vote  of  the  people  of 
the  state  at  a  general  election,  and  have  been  approved 
by  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  polled  at  such  election. 
The  general  assembly  shall  never  loan  the  credit  of 
the  state,  or  make  appropriations  from  the  treasury 
thereof,  in  aid  of  railroads  or  canals:  Provided,  that 
any  surplus  earnings  of  any  canal  may  be  appropriated 
for  its  enlargement  or  extension." 


MANAGEMENT  75 

to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  which  held  the 
appropriation  violative  of  the  above  constitutional 
provision  and  therefore  illegal.1  Since  then  the 
commissioners  have  been  compelled  to  maintain 
the  canal  by  such  expedients  as  have  been  at  their 
disposal  from  year  to  year.  To  supplement  the 
small  earnings,  tracts  of  real  estate  have  been 
sold  from  time  to  time  and  portions  of  the  ex- 
penses formerly  charged  against  the  canal  funds 
have  frequently  been  charged  against  the  appro- 
priations for  the  improvement  of  the  Illinois  river 
channel.2  By  these  expedients  the  canal  has  been 
maintained  in  recent  years.  The  lack  of  funds, 
however,  has  prevented  the  commissioners  from 
making  the  necessary  repairs  and  the  efficiency  of 
the  canal  as  a  transportation  route  has  suffered 
accordingly.  Much  of  the  time,  portions  of  the 
canal  have  been  practically  unnavigable  for  boats 
with  anything  like  a  standard  load.3  In  fact,  the 

1  In  the  case  of  Burke  vs.  Snively  et  al,  the  decision  in 
the  Supreme  Court  was  handed  down  February  17,  1904 
and  is  given  in  full,  together  with  a  dissenting  opinion, 
in  the  Illinois  Reports,Vo\ume  208,  pp.  328-363,  and  also, 
in  the  Northeastern  Reporter,  Volume  70,  pp.  327-338. 

2  Since  the  completion  of  the  locks  at  Henry  and 
Copperas  Creek  on  the  Illinois  River,  the  portion  of  the 
river  from  La  Salle  to  Copperas  Creek  has  been  under  the 
charge  of  the  canal  commissioners  and  is,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  an  extension  of  the  canal  to  the  latter 
point.     The  lock  at  Henry  was  opened  in  September 
1871  and  that  at  Copperas  Creek  in  October,  1877. 

3  A  canal  boat  bearing  the  standard  load  draws  four 
feet  and  eight  inches  of  water. 


76       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

upper  section  of  the  canal  from  Lockport  to  Chi- 
cago has  been  abandoned  and  the  traffic  transferred 
to  the  Drainage  Canal. 

Nearly  allied  to  the  financial  administration,  is 
the  policy  pursued  in  relation  to  the  canal  lands 
and  water  power.  It  has  never  been  the  policy  of 
the  state  to  retain  permanently  the  ownership  of 
any  considerable  portion  of  the  290,915  acres 
granted  to  it,  aside  from  the  ninety  foot  strip  on 
each  side  of  the  canal.  The  sales  of  lots  and  lands 
in  1830  and  1836,  however,  convinced  the  com- 
missioners that  the  only  hope  of  obtaining  any 
large  part  of  the  cost  of  the  canal  from  the  federal 
land  grant,  lay  in  the  retention  of  the  land  by  the 
state  till  the  completion  of  the  canal  should  have 
increased  its  value.  Small  sales  of  lots  and  of 
farm  and  timber  lands  were  made  occasionally,  to 
meet  the  most  urgent  demands  on  the  canal  treas- 
ury. As  a  means  of  replenishing  the  treasury, 
however,  the  sales  proved  a  failure.  First,  because 
the  amounts  sold  were  relatively  small  and,  sec- 
ondly, because  the  payments  were  made  in  in- 
stallments, most  of  which  did  not  fall  due  for 
several  years  after  the  date  of  sale.  Land  sales, 
even  under  the  act  of  January  9,  1836,  which 
required  the  payment  of  the  purchase  price  in 
four  equal  annual  installments,  would  not  have 
met  the  pressing  needs  of  the  treasury,  but  suc- 
ceeding laws  rendered  this  method  of  raising 
needed  funds,  entirely  ineffective.  The  act  of 
February  26,  1839,  provided  that  one-tenth  of  the 
purchase  price  should  be  paid  on  receipt  of  the 


MANAGEMENT  77 

certificate  of  purchase,  but  the  remaining  nine- 
tenths  became  due  only  at  the  expiration  of  twenty 
years  from  the  date  of  sale.1 

In  the  desperate  state  of  the  finances  in  1840, 
the  commissioners  were  directed  to  sell  enough 
canal  land  each  year  to  meet  the  interest  on  the 
canal  debt.2  The  sales  for  the  year,  however, 
amounted  to  only  $61,975.57  and  for  the  following 
year,  $88,598.  3  8.3  Since  the  land  was  sold  under 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  February  26,  1839, 
and  since  the  canal  debt  was  even  then  about 
$3,000,000  and  rapidly  increasing  it  was  clearly 
evident  that  the  interest  could  not  be  met  by  the 
sale  of  land  unless  at  a  price  detrimental  to  the 
permanent  financial  welfare  of  the  state.  More- 
over, the  land  could  not  be  sold  at  lower  prices, 
except  on  a  revaluation  by  the  appraisers.4  This 
the  commissioners  did  not  desire.  They  preferred 


commissioners  were  permitted  to  increase  the 
proportion  of  the  purchase  price  which  should  be 
paid  at  the  time  of  purchase,  by  previously  advertising 
the  conditions  of  the  sale.  Little  advantage  seems  to 
have  been  gained  by  this  privilege.  Many  changes 
were  later  made  in  the  conditions  of  sales,  but  it  was 
not  till  1869  that  payment  had  to  be  made  in  cash  at 
time  of  the  purchase. 

2  Laws  of  Illinois,  1839-40,  pp.  79-80. 

8  Report  of  Canal  Commissioners,  1878,  p.  47. 

4  No  land  or  lot  could  be  sold  till  after  its  value  had 
been  appraised  by  the  board  of  appraisers,  and  none 
could  be  sold  for  less  than  its  appraised  value.  The 
fluctuation  of  real  estate  values,  especially  in  the  cities, 
required  frequent  revaluations. 


78       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

to  continue  the  policy  of  reserving  the  greater  part 
of  the  land  till  the  completion  of  the  canal  should 
have  enhanced  its  value  sufficiently  to  cover  a 
large  part  of  the  canal  debt.  From  July  i,  1841, 
the  state  suspended  interest  payments  on  its 
entire  debt.1  Had  the  commissioners  pursued  the 
policy  authorized  by  the  act  of  February  i,  1840, 
this  event  might  have  been  delayed.  It  would 
not  have  been  averted.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
sale  of  a  sufficient  amount  of  the  canal  land  to 
meet  the  interest  charges  on  the  canal  debt  would 
have  so  seriously  weakened  the  resources  of  the 
canal  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  creditors 
would  have  accepted  the  deed  of  trust  on  the  canal 
and  its  property  as  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  the 
$1,600,000  loan  necessary  to  the  completion  of 
the  work.  The  policy  of  the  commissioners  may 
have  permitted  the  state  to  be  forced  to  a  tempo- 
rary suspension  of  interest  payments,  but  it  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  completion  of  the  canal  and 
the  ultimate  extinguishment  of  the  canal  debt. 
Had  the  commissioners  adopted  the  policy  of 
forcing  the  land  on  the  market,  the  abandonment 
of  the  canal  and  the  ultimate  financial  ruin  of  the 
state  would  have  been  inevitable,  and  the  repudia- 
tion of  the  state  debt  almost  certain.2 

Not  only  did  the  land  policy  pursued  by  the 
commissioners  furnish  the  state  a  valuable  asset 

1  Chapter  II,  page  52,  note  2,  above. 

2  Repudiation  had  already  been  seriously  proposed 
by  many  people  as  the  only  possible  means  of  freeing 
the  state  from  an  excessive  burden  of  debt. 


MANAGEMENT  79 

in  securing  the  necessary  loan,  but  it  proved  an 
equally  important  one  in  the  extinguishment  of 
the  canal  debt.  From  the  opening  of  the  canal 
for  traffic  till  the  final  settlement  of  the  canal  debt, 
the  sales  of  lands  and  lots  played  an  important 
part  in  furnishing  the  funds  for  the  liquidation 
of  the  maturing  financial  obligations  of  the  canal. 
In  the  summer  of  1848  the  trustees  sold  45,625 
acres  of  land  and  2,244  l°ts-  In  tne  case  °f  both 
lands  and  lots,  the  selling  price  exceeded  the 
appraised  valuations.1  The  spirited  competition 
among  the  buyers  forced  the  prices  of  many  of  the 
lots  to  double  their  appraisement.2  In  the  first 
three  years  of  the  operation  of  the  canal  the  sales 
of  lots  and  lands  amounted  to  $i,ooi,487,3  while 
all  the  sales  for  the  fifteen  years  preceding  the  be- 
ginning of  the  trust  had  aggregated  only  $1,152, 
064. 79.4  During  the  continuance  of  the  trust  from 
June  26,  1845  to  April  30,  1871,  the  trustees  dis- 
posed of  lands  and  lots  to  the  amount  of  $4,706, 
482. 68.6  After  the  extinguishment  of  the  canal 

1The  lands  sold  were  appraised  at  $208,021  and  sold 
for  $210,775.  The  appraised  value  of  the  lots  was 
$505,124  and  the  selling  price,  $554,864. 

2The  Chicago  Daily  Democrat,  September  26,  1848. 
This  issue  of  the  Democrat  quotes  at  length  from  the 
Ottawa  Free  Trader  concerning  the  sale  of  lots  in  that 
city.  The  Free  Trader  estimates  that  the  sales  of  lots 
in  Ottawa  had  exceeded  $130,000. 

3  Swift's  Report  to  the  Canal  Creditors,  1850,  p.  9. 

4  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,   1887,  Volume  II, 
Part  3,  p.  2147. 

8 Final  Report  of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1871,  p.  9. 


80       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

debt,  the  sales  proceeded  more  slowly.  Between 
April  30,  1871,  and  December  I,  1878,  they  yielded 
$27,492.21  to  the  canal  funds,  but  in  the  succeed- 
ing seven  years,  ending  December  i,  1885,  the 
total  receipts  from  this  source  were  only  $6,668. 28. * 
From  that  time,  the  sales  were  of  little  conse- 
quence till  the  decline  of  other  sources  of  revenue  in 
recent  years  compelled  the  canal  management  to 
resort  to  this  method  of  replenishing  the  treasury. 
In  the  meantime,  the  advance  in  the  value  of  city 
lots,  which  compose  most  of  the  real  estate  values 
held  by  the  canal,  has  been  sufficient  to  leave  the 
value  of  the  present  holdings  about  the  same  as 
those  of  1885. 2  The  estimated  value  at  that  time 
was  $166,023.59.  In  1907,  it  was  $168,878.59. 
Since  1898,  there  had  been  a  decrease  of  $18,- 
969.41  in  the  value  of  lands  and  lots  held,  but, 
during  the  same  period  the  sales  amounted  to 
$79, 1 87.73 .3 

The  early  management  of  the  canal  lands  was 
of  such  a  character  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the 

1  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  1887,  Volume  II, 
part  3,  pp.  2147-2148. 

2Of  the  estimated  values  for  each  year  since  1885, 
only  $360.59  has  been  assigned  to  the  tracts  of  land 
as  follows : 

Two  very  small  islands $10.00 

Two  tracts  of  land  aggregating  15.34  acres. .      350.59 

$360.59 

'The  decrease  in  value  since  1898  and  the  amount  of 
sales  for  the  same  period  have  been  computed  from  the 
annual  reports  of  the  canal  commissioners. 


MANAGEMENT  81 

trust  in  1871,  sufficient  funds  had  been  derived 
from  their  sales  to  cancel  $5,858,547.47  of  the 
£6,557,681.50  which  the  canal  originally  cost, 
exclusive  of  interest  charges,  exchanges,  and  other 
similar  items.  Since  the  payment  of  the  original 
canal  debt,  more  than  £100,000  has  been  re- 
ceived from  the  sales  of  lots  and  lands,  in  addition 
to  the  rentals,  which  have  varied  from  year  to 
year. 

The  management  of  the  canal  was  liberal  toward 
the  purchasers  of  canal  land.  Although  the  law 
provided  for  the  forfeiture  of  lands  and  lots  if  the 
purchaser  failed  to  meet  his  payments  of  principal 
or  interest  when  due,  it  also  made  the  certificates 
of  purchase  negotiable  and  transferable  either  by 
endorsement  or  by  a  separate  instrument.  These 
provisions  not  being  sufficient  for  the  relief  of 
purchasers  who  had  bought  lands  or  lots  at  the 
inflated  prices  preceding  the  panic  of  1837,  the 
act  of  February  27,  1841,  made  special  provision 
for  this  class  of  debtors.1  The  debtor  was  per- 
mitted to  select  such  part  of  his  purchase  as  the 
payments  made  would  buy  after  deducting  one- 
third  from  the  original  purchase  price.  On  re- 
linquishment  of  the  remainder,  his  remaining  obli- 
gations to  the  State  were  cancelled.2  The  State 

lLaws  of  Illinois,  1841,  pp.  49-51. 

2  In  the  case  of  farm  or  timber  lands  all  divisions 
were  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  government  survey 
divisions.  In  case  of  city  lots,  such  division  was 
required  as  would  leave  to  the  state  proportionately 
as  much  frontage  as  to  the  purchaser. 


82        THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

went  even  further  in  its  liberality  and  passed  num- 
erous special  acts  for  the  relief  of  individuals  who 
for  one  reason  or  another,  did  not  come  within 
the  purview  of  the  general  enactments.1  It  also 
enabled  men  to  secure  choice  tracts  of  land  by 
permitting  them  to  occupy  and  improve  the  tracts 
before  they  were  offered  for  sale.  By  payment  of 
rent  to  the  state  these  men  were  able  to  hold  the 
land  till  it  was  put  upon  the  market  when  they 
were  usually  able  to  secure  it  at  the  valuation  of 
the  appraisers.  For  the  protection  of  the  State 
and  the  bona  fide  settlers  against  the  land  grabber 
and  speculator  the  limit  of  the  privilege  of  hold- 
ing land  was  restricted  to  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres.2 

An  effort  was  also  made  by  the  canal  manage- 
ment to  assist  in  attracting  to  the  canal  region  a 
desirable  class  of  settlers  by  promoting  the  com- 
munity life  of  the  villages  and  towns  along  the 
canal,  by  aiding  the  social  and  moral  uplift  of  the 
community  through  provision  for  public  education 
and  religious  instruction.3  In  pursuance  of  this 
policy  lots  were  granted  for  public  buildings,  such 
as  court  houses,  schools,  and  churches.  Liberal 

Examples  of  such  acts  are  those  of  February  25,  1845 
and  numerous  others. 

*Laws  of  Illinois,  1837,  p.  45. 

'Henry  Brown,  a  historian  of  Chicago,  is  authority 
for  the  statement  that  the  canal  commissioners  gave 
twenty-five  lots  to  Chicago  to  aid  in  the  erection  of 
public  buildings.  Brown's  Present  and  Future  Pros- 
pects of  Chicago,  p.  5. 


MANAGEMENT  83 

concessions  were  made  in  the  matter  of  the  location 
of  the  lots  and  in  the  manner  of  using  them.1 

In  addition  to  the  rental  of  unsold  lands,  it  has 
been  part  of  the  policy  of  the  management  to 
grant  twenty-year  leases  for  the  use  of  such  parts 
of  the  ninety-foot  strips  as  are  favorably  situated 
for  the  location  of  ware-houses,  elevators,  or  other 
business  establishments.2  The  same  policy  is 
pursued  relative  to  the  water  power  developed  at 
various  places  along  the  canal  from  Lockport  to 
La  Salle.  These  leases  of  water  power  have  been 
of  especial  importance  at  Lockport,  Joliet,  and 
Ottawa.  The  water  power  lease  at  Lockport  was 
of  less  financial  importance  directly  than  indirectly, 
however.  The  Norton  Mills  at  that  place  derived 
their  power  from  the  canal  but  they  also  trans- 
ported much  of  their  wheat  and  flour  on  it.  For 
several  years  the  wheat  carried  from  Chicago  to 
these  mills  and  the  flour  and  millstuffs  returned 

Churches  were  permitted  to  sell  part  or  all  of  the 
lots  donated,  provided  the  funds  received  from  the 
sale  should  be  expended  in  the  erection  of  a  church 
building  or  in  securing  a  more  desirable  site. 

2On  taking  control  of  the  canal,  the  trustees  adopted 
the  policy  of  charging  rentals  for  the  use  of  canal 
property.  The  act  of  February  21,  1843  prohibited  the 
sale  of  lands  or  water  power  till  three  months  after  the 
canal  was  opened  for  operation,  but  the  act  of  Feb- 
ruary 25,  1847  removed  the  restriction  and  left  the 
matter  to  the  discretion  of  the  trustees,  with  the  one 
restriction  that  not  more  than  one  tenth  of  the  canal 
lots  or  lands  in  any  one  city  or  town  could  be  sold 
till  after  the  completion  of  the  canal. 


84       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

constituted  a  large  part  of  the  traffic  on  the  upper 
section  of  the  canal.1  In  addition  to  Norton  and 
Company,  among  the  more  prominent  of  the  les- 
sees of  recent  years  have  been  the  Economy 
Light  and  Power  Company  and  the  Great  West- 
ern Cereal  Company  of  Joliet,  and  the  Ottawa 
Hydraulic  Company,  and  the  Northern  Illinois 
Light  and  Traction  Company  of  Ottawa.  Many 
other  corporations,  firms,  and  individuals  derive 
power  from  the  same  source,  or  pay  rentals  for 
the  occupation  of  portions  of  the  ninety-foot  strip. 

The  opening  of  the  Chicago  Drainage  Canal 
materially  increased  the  rentals  from  water  power 
by  largely  augmenting  the  flow  over  the  state  dam 
where  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  crosses  the 
Des  Plaines  River  in  the  city  of  Joliet.  The  in- 
creased rentals  from  water  power  have  about 
counterbalanced  the  decrease  of  those  from  the 
ninety-foot  strip,  which  have  declined  with  the 
decline  of  the  traffic  on  the  canal.2 

To  these  rentals  should  be  added  the  receipts  from 
the  ice  leases  and  from  water  pipe  and  sprinkling 

*0f  the  38,820  tons  of  freight  carried  on  the  canal 
in  1905,  there  were  335,334  bushels  of  wheat  shipped 
from  Chicago  and  6, 1 63, 444  pounds  of  flour  and 
2,340,927  pounds  of  millstuffs  received.  Practically 
all  of  this  business  was  produced  by  the  Lockport 
mills.  However,  the  upper  section  of  the  canal, 
extending  from  Lockport  to  Chicago,  has  since  been 
closed  to  traffic  and  all  canal  traffic  between  these  two 
points  is  now  carried  on  the  Drainage  Canal. 

2  For  the  last  eighteen  years,  the  earnings  from  these 
two  sources  have  been  as  follows: 


RECEIPTS  OF  THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 
1898-1915 


TOTAL  EARNINGS 

TOLLS 

TOTAL  RENTALS 

.00..,  WATER  POWER 

NINETY-FOOT  STRIP 

ICE  LEASES 

WATER  PIPE  AND  SPRINKLING 


IIM  1900 


MANAGEMENT  85 

privileges  and  miscellaneous  items,  which  have 
recently  aggregated  several  hundred  dollars  a  year.1 
In  the  last  eighteen  years  the  earnings  from  rent- 
als, leases,  and  privileges,  have  been  $333,511, 
while  the  tolls  for  the  same  period  amounted  to 
only  $150,433. 

The  state  has  never  attempted  to  transport 
passengers  or  freight.  It  has  furnished  the  route 
and  left  the  work  of  transportation  to  individuals 
and  corporations.  On  the  opening  of  the  canal, 
the  commissioners  fixed  the  rate  of  tolls  to  be  paid 
by  the  owners  of  vessels  for  the  privilege  of  using 
the  canal.  These  tolls  were  made  up  of  two  sepa- 


Year 

90  foot  strip 

Water  power 

Both 

1898 

£7>726.93 

$7,572.70 

$15,299.63 

I899 

13,627.00 

8,108.50 

21,735-50 

I9OO 

6,141.00 

4,704.87 

10,845.87 

I9OI 

4,175.00 

9,068.22 

13,243.22 

1902 

1,550.00 

I3,857-69 

15,407.69 

1903 

3,790-75 

11,911.82 

15,702.57 

1904 

3,001-33 

18,988.87 

21,990.20 

1905 

1,959.00 

15,936.47 

17,89547 

1906 

2,399.00 

15,337-59 

17,736.59 

1907 

2,957.00 

6,413.84 

9,370.84 

1908 

2,370.40 

9,288.43 

12,658.83 

1909 

2,529.20 

19,666.06 

22,195.26 

I9IO 

3,272.20 

13,05075 

16,322.95 

I9II 

5,479-56 

12,196.30 

17,675.86 

1912 

3,258.60 

I3,54L74 

16,800.34 

1913 

5,781.20 

I4,I5O.OO 

19,931.20 

1914 

5,386.20 

14,510.00 

19,896.20 

I9IS 

8,066.33 

14,110.00 

22,176.33 

receipts  have  been: 


86       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

rate  charges.  First,  a  charge  per  mile  for  each 
boat  or  barge.  Second,  a  charge  per  mile  for 
each  thousand  pounds  of  freight  or  for  each  pas- 
senger carried.1  The  same  method  of  estimating 
the  charges  for  the  use  of  the  canal  has  been 
continued  down  to  the  present  time,  but  the  rates 
have  been  reduced  from  time  to  time  in  an  effort 
to  withstand  the  increasing  competition  of  the 
railways.  Notwithstanding  the  reductions  in 
canal  charges,  the  traffic  has  gone  more  and  more 
to  the  railroads  till  for  the  year  ending  November 
30,  1905,  the  total  amount  of  freight  transported 


Year 

Water  pipe  and  sprinkling 
Ice  leases      privileges  and  miscellaneous        Both 

1898 

$     856.00 

$1,236.21 

$2,092.21 

I899 

1,257.00 

3,211.48 

4,468.48 

1900 

767.00 

1,670.50 

2,437-50 

I9OI 

1,077.00 

I93-50 

1,270.50 

I9O2 

1,057.00 

553-00 

1,610.00 

1903 

1,772.00 

1,022.15 

2,794-15 

1904 

3OO.OO 

4,372.90 

4,672.90 

1905 

987.00 

2,102.34 

3,089-34 

1906 

371.00 

2,327-31 

2,698.31 

1907 

585.00 

i,977-95 

2,562.95 

1908 

3II.OO 

3,467.81 

3,778.81 

1909 

526.00 

3,879.58 

4,405.58 

I9IO 

1,455-Qo 

6,364.40 

7,819.40 

I9II 

846.50 

4,175.16 

5,021.66 

1912 

1,095.50 

5,35i.i9 

6,446.69 

1913 

901.50 

5,240.17 

6,141.67 

1914 

355-50 

7,452.46 

7,807.96 

1915 

1,786.50 

5,821.88 

7,608.38 

lThe  list  of  tolls  adopted  in  1848  may  be  found  in 
appendix  III. 


TOLLS  AND  EXPENDITURES  ON   THE 
ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL,  1848-1915 


•  -  TOLLS 

•"  CROSS  EXPENSES 

—  ORDINARY  REPAIRS 

—  EXTRAORDINARY  REPAIRS 


MANAGEMENT  87 

on  the  canal  was  only  38,820  tons  against  1,01 1,287 
tons  in  1882.  In  1915  the  tonnage  had  increased 
to  358,550  tons  but  the  tolls  had  decreased,  due  to 
the  character  of  the  freight  handled  and  to  the  fact 
that  no  tolls  can  be  charged  for  the  traffic  on  the 
Drainage  Canal  portion  of  the  route.  For  1905 
the  tolls,  including  those  collected  at  the  locks  at 
Henry  and  Copperas  Creek  on  the  Illinois  River, 
amounted  to  only  $4,950  and  the  gross  expendi- 
tures were  $50,890.  *  In  1915  the  tolls  were 
$1,336,  and  the  expenditures  were  $35,756.  For 
the  decline  in  tonnage  and  tolls,  the  management 
is  only  partially  responsible.  The  railroads  have 
taken  the  business  from  the  canal  partly  because 
of  the  advantages  offered  by  the  great  railway 
systems  with  their  methods  of  prorating  of  freights 
and  interchange  of  cars  and  partly  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  railroads  are  managed  by  capable 
men,  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  transportation 
business,  while  the  canal  is  managed  by  men 
appointed  because  of  the  political  influence  back 
of  them,  rather  than  because  of  their  familiarity 
with  transportation  problems. 

Although  politics  played  a  more  or  less  impor- 
tant part  in  the  management  of  the  canal  from  the 
beginning,  it  has  been  a  more  pronounced  element 
in  the  determination  of  appointments  in  recent 
years  than  formerly.  For  many  years  practically 
all  the  appointments  have  been  determined  by 

xThe  tolls,  expenditures,  and  tonnage  of  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal  to  the  close  of  1915  are  to  be 
found  in  appendix  I. 


88       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

political  affiliations.1  The  efficiency  of  the  canal 
administration  necessarily  suffered.  Two  in- 
stances which  have  come  to  public  knowledge 
within  recent  years  exhibit  this  phase  of  the  later 
management.2  In  the  investigation  of  the  dam- 

'The  insecurity  of  tenure  is  illustrated  by  the  changes 
which  occurred  in  the  personnel  of  the  canal  force 
between  February  15  and  March  15,  1897  when 
every  man  on  the  pay  roll  with  a  single  exception 
was  changed.  The  changes  were  somewhat  more 
sweeping  in  this  case  than  usual  because  the  state 
administration  was  passing  from  the  control  of  one 
party  to  that  of  its  opponent,  but  the  principle  holds 
true  generally  that  the  employees  must  affiliate  with 
the  political  faction  in  power. 

2The  one  scandal  connected  with  the  earlier  history 
of  the  canal  grew  out  of  the  failure  of  the  canal  officials 
to  properly  cancel  or  destroy  the  redeemed  scrip. 
By  reason  of  this  failure  the  state  came  near  losing 
$200,000  through  the  redemption  of  a  portion  of  it 
a  second  time,  and  the  fair  name  of  Ex-Governor 
Mattison  was  brought  under  suspicion.  The  scrip 
in  question  was  issued  in  1840  and  mostly  redeemed 
within  a  few  months.  After  remaining  in  the  Chicago 
branch  of  the  Illinois  State  Bank  and  at  the  canal 
office  till  1853,  it  was  transferred  to  Springfield  in  a 
trunk  and  a  shoe  box  and  placed  in  the  basement  of 
the  capitol  building.  In  1857  Governor  Mattison 
presented  for  redemption  scrip  which  with  the  ac- 
cumulated interest  amounted  to  about  $200,000. 
In  1859,  after  an  investigation,  a  senate  committee 
and  the  grand  jury  of  Sangamon  County  failed  to  hold 
Mattison  culpable.  He  reimbursed  the  state,  but  his 
friends  claimed  that  he  did  so  to  prevent  financial 
loss  arising  under  his  administration  and  that  the 
scrip  presented  had  come  into  his  hands  through 


MANAGEMENT  89 

ages  which  would  be  sustained  by  the  canal  prop- 
erty from  the  construction  of  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal,  it  was  discovered  that  for  many  years 
squatters  had  held  several  tracts  of  canal  land 
which  had  been  entirely  lost  sight  of  by  the  canal 
management.  It  was  further  discovered  that 
among  the  forgotten  files  of  the  canal  office  were 
unrecorded  deeds  to  several  lots  and  parcels  of 
land  in  the  city  of  Joliet.1  The  same  failure  to 
conserve  the  best  interests  of  the  state  in  the 
management  of  the  canal  affairs  came  to  light  in 
the  legislative  investigations  of  the  "Dresden 
Heights  dam  lease,"  in  the  month  of  November, 
1907.  According  to  the  evidence  there  pre- 
sented, the  canal  officials  entered  into  a  sale  and 
lease  of  state  property  to  a  private  corporation, 
seemingly  without  any  definite  knowledge  of  the 
value  of  the  rights  conveyed.2  The  consideration 
was  $2,200  and  the  value  of  the  rights  conveyed 

legitimate  business  transactions.  Cancellation  or 
destruction  of  the  scrip  as  redeemed  would  have 
prevented  the  unfortunate  affair. 

1  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1897,  pp.  9-11. 

2The  report  of  the  testimony  given  before  the 
legislative  investigating  committee  was  published 
daily  in  the  Chicago  Record  Herald  during  the  progress 
of  the  investigation,  beginning  November  20,  1907. 
The  lease  was  made  to  Harold  F.  Griswold  who  trans- 
ferred it  to  the  Economy  Light  and  Power  Company. 
By  a  joint  resolution  which  passed  both  houses  on 
November  27,  1907,  the  General  Assembly  directed 
the  Canal  Commissioners  to  cancel  the  lease.  Laws 
of  Illinois,  Adjourned  Session,  1907-1908,  pp.  101-102. 


QO       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

has  been  variously  estimated  at  from  $5,000,000 
to  $i  5,000,000.*  Even  assuming  that  the  lowest 
of  these  estimates  greatly  exceeds  the  real  value 
of  these  rights,  it  would  appear  that  the  canal 
officials  permitted  themselves  to  be  drawn  into  a 
contract  by  which  the  state  would  not  receive  com- 
pensation commensurate  with  the  rights  conveyed. 
These  instances  are  sufficient  to  indicate  a  type  of 
management  which  is  certainly  not  above  criticism. 
Although  in  recent  years  the  canal  has  been 
compelled  to  carry  the  incubus  of  the  spoils 
politician,  it  has  not,  on  the  whole,  suffered  more 
from  this  source  than  the  state  penal  and  charitable 
insitutions  did  before  they  were  placed  under  the 
civil  service  system.  The  character  and  efficiency 
of  the  management  has  varied  at  different  times 
and  with  different  boards.  As  a  rule,  however, 
it  was  more  efficient  when  the  canal  was  an  im- 
portant commercial  route  than  it  has  been  since 
the  traffic  has  largely  gone  to  the  railroads.  Since 
the  canal  has  ceased  to  be  of  much  consequence  as 
a  transportation  agency,  the  public  has  ceased  to 
exercise  the  watchfulness,  born  of  personal  inter- 
est, which  compelled  a  reasonable  degree  of 
efficiency  in  its  earlier  management.  The  history 

*The  entire  deal  consisted  of  three  parts.  First,  a 
lease  of  flowage  rights  in  the  Des  Plaines  River,  con- 
sideration $2,200.  Second,  the  right  to  place  a  line 
of  poles  for  the  purpose  of  stringing  electric  wires  along 
the  ninety-foot  strip.  Third,  the  purchase  of  a  small 
tract  of  land  lying  between  the  canal  and  the  river 
bank,  consideration  $500. 


MANAGEMENT  91 

of  the  canal  has  demonstrated  once  again  the  oft- 
demonstrated  facts  that,  in  the  long  run,  an  intel- 
ligeint  public  interest  is  essential  to  the  successful 
conduct  of  a  public  business  and  that  there  is  no 
necessary  correspondence  between  the  ability  of  a 
political  appointee  to  obtain  an  appointment  and 
his  ability  to  successfully  perform  the  duties  which 
attach  to  the  position  obtained.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  a  greater  care  exercised  in  the 
selection  of  the  canal  commissioners  and  a  well 
organized  civil  service  based  on  the  merit  system 
and  strictly  applied  in  the  selection  of  all  officers 
and  employees,  would  have  added  to  the  efficiency 
of  the  canal  management.  The  tasks  to  be  per- 
formed demanded  men  of  large  ability,  special 
skill,  and  unswerving  integrity.  The  system  em- 
ployed in  the  selection  of  men  and  the  distribution 
of  powers  and  responsibilities  has  not  always  in- 
sured the  highest  type  of  management. 


Chapter  IF 
ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE 

[Before  the  canal  was  opened  for  traffic  its  local 
influence  in  the  development  of  the  region  through 
which  it  passes  had  been  distinctly  marked.  After 
its  opening  it  wielded  a  larger  influence,  not  only 
locally,  but  over  a  wider  range  of  territory,  by 
means  of  the  added  facilities  which  it  furnished  as 
a  transportation  route  before  the  era  of  railroads, 
giving  access  to  otherwise  closed  markets.  Since 
the  era  of  railroad  building  began  in  the  middle 
West,  it  has  also  served  as  a  freight-rate  regulator 
at  all  competitive  points.  In  the  performance  of 
these  services,  however,  it  has  been  handicapped 
first,  by  the  conditions  of  the  Illinois  River,  which 
together  with  the  canal,  completes  the  waterway 
from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi;  secondly, 
by  the  character  and  conditions  of  the  railroad 
competition;  and,  thirdly,  to  a  less  extent,  by  the 
character  of  the  canal  management.  The  in- 
fluence exerted  by  the  canal  may  be  divided  logical- 
ly and  chronologically  into  three  periods.  The 
first  period  was  during  the  development  of  the 
project  and  the  construction  of  the  canal.  The 
second  period  was  comprised  in  the  six  years  from 
the  beginning  of  the  traffic  on  the  canal  in  1848  to 
the  opening  of  the  Chicago  and  Rock  Island  Rail- 
92 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  93 

road  from  Chicago  to  the  Mississippi  River  in  1854. 
The  third  period  consists  of  the  years  of  competi- 
tion for  traffic  between  the  canal  and  the  railroads. 

During  the  years  of  projection  and  construction 
of  the  canal  the  wealth  and  population  of  the 
canal  region  grew  apace.  In  1829  when  the  Canal 
Commissioners  laid  out  the  towns  of  Chicago  and 
Ottawa,  Peoria  was  a  small  pioneer  outpost  on  the 
extreme  northern  frontier  of  the  settled  portion  of 
Illinois.1  Beyond  it,  far  removed  from  any  imme- 
diate connection  with  the  remainder  of  the  state, 
and  separated  by  wide  stretches  of  country  trav- 
ersed only  by  the  red  man  and  a  few  traders,  lay 
a  small  settlement  at  the  mouth  of  the  Chicago 
River  and  another  at  Galena  in  the  lead  mining 
district  on  the  upper  Mississippi.2 

Between  1830  and  1835  the  increasing  probabil- 
ity of  the  early  construction  of  the  canal  and  the 
widely  disseminated  opinion  that  its  completion 
would  greatly  increase  the  value  of  all  the  land 
within  a  reasonable  distance  of  the  route  and 

irThere  were  but  few  settlers  north  of  Fulton  County 
in  the  "Military  Tract,"  or  north  of  the  Sangamon 
River  east  of  the  Illinois. 

2The  entire  population  in  the  vicinity  of  the  present 
city  of  Chicago,  including  white  families,  half-breeds 
and  three  or  four  French  traders,  did  not  exceed  one 
hundred.  The  poll-book  used  at  an  election  held  in  the 
precinct  of  Chicago,  Peoria  County,  August  2,  1830, 
contains  thirty-two  names.  Not  all  of  these  voters 
lived  at  the  village  of  Chicago.  Cf.  Wentworth's 
lecture  before  the  Chicago  Historical  Society,  in  the 
Fergus  Historical  Series,  No.  7,  p.  16. 


94       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

develop  the  proposed  cities  and  villages  along  its 
course,  led  to  a  steadily  increasing  demand  for 
farms  and  town  lots  along  the  line  of  the  projected 
waterway.  This  movement,  slow  at  first,  was 
accelerated  as  it  became  increasingly  apparent 
that  the  construction  would  not  be  long  delayed. 
By  the  beginning  of  the  actual  work  of  construc- 
tion in  1836,  real  estate  speculation  had  become 
the  chief  occupation  in  the  canal  region.  Shrewd 
business  men  perceived  that  Chicago  would  neces- 
sarily become  the  transfer  point  for  all  passengers 
and  commerce  passing  between  the  Great  Lakes 
and  the  canal  and  that  it  was  destined  to  be  the 
emporium  of  western  trade.1  A  realization  of 
these  facts  made  the  canal  region,  and  particularly 
Chicago,  a  favorite  place  for  the  exercise  of  the 
speculative  mania  that  swept  over  the  country 
just  prior  to  the  panic  of  1837.  Accordingly,  real 
estate  values  advanced  by  leaps  and  bounds.2 
In  1830,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  lots  sold  in 
Chicago  at  prices  varying  from  twenty-four  to 
one  hundred  and  thirty  dollars  each,  but  averaging 
about  thirty-five  dollars.  Eighty  acres  of  land, 

lAs  originally  laid  out  in  1830,  the  town  of  Chicago 
comprised  the  territory  between  the  present  streets 
of  State  and  Halsted,  and  Kinzie  and  Madison,  the 
junction  of  the  north  and  south  forks  of  the  Chicago 
river  falling  within  the  limits  of  the  town.  James 
Thompson  of  St.  Louis  was  surveyor  for  the  Commis- 
sioners. His  plat  and  compass  are  owned  by  the  Chicago 
Historical  Society. 

'Andreas,  History  of  Chicago,  I,  p.  115. 


The  original  Town  of  Chicago,  the  eastern  ter- 
minus of  the  Canal,  as  surveyed  by  James  Thompson 
by  order  of  the  Commissioners.  His  plat  showing 
purchasers  of  lots,  filed  August  4,  1830.  "The 
Forks,"  not  the  Public  Square,  was  the  center  of 
population  at  this  time. 


- 

rated 

>nst  ruction  would  no 
of  the  a 

i  had  become 

n  in  the  canal  region.     Shrewd 

•ived  that  'Chicago  would  neces- 

i  ransfer  point  for  all  passengers 

•  between  the  Great  Lakes 

and  that  it  was  destined  to  be  the 

trade.1  nation   of 

larly 

.    .fl  I  ,jrm;I    . 
' 

vanced 
hundred  and  twei 

ing  from   twenty-four  to 

nrty  dollars  each,  but  averaging 

hty  acres  of  land, 


ally  laid  'wn  of  Chicago 

the   pre,- 
.nd  Kinzi'e  aiu 
,  -    -  .  nth  forks  ncago 

-,4-  '       • 

•oils  was  surveyor  i  >mmis- 

^areownt  iiicago 


THE  "CANAL  TOWN"  OF  CHICAGO 
James  Thompson,  Surveyor 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  95 

now  in  the  heart  of  the  city,  brought  $1.55  an 
acre.1  Four  years  later,  lots  on  South  Water 
street,  then  the  chief  business  street  of  the  city, 
sold  for  $3,500  each.2  A  tract  of  forty  acres  of 
land,  now  included  in  Butler,  Wright,  and  Web- 
ster's addition,  was  purchased  on  January  2,  1835, 
for  $4,000.  On  April  10  following  it  was  sold  for 
$10,000. 3  The  active  preparation  for  the  actual 
beginning  of  the  work  only  led  to  still  wilder  spec- 
ulation, till  the  mania  was  checked  by  the  panic. 

The  rise  and  decline  in  real  estate  values  in 
other  towns  along  the  canal  were  less  phenomenal 
and  spectacular  but  otherwise  very  similar  to  those 
at  Chicago.  The  growth  of  the  towns  was  slower 
and  the  speculative  spirit  less  rampant.  Conse- 
quently, the  real  estate  prices  were  not  subject  to 
such  violent  fluctuations.  At  Ottawa,  in  1830, 
the  Canal  Commissioners  sold  nine  lots  at  an 
average  price  of  twenty  dollars  each.  In  1836, 
they  sold  seventy-eight  at  an  average  price  of 
$273. 85.*  In  other  canal  towns  the  increase  in 
values  followed  about  the  same  course  as  at  Ottawa. 

As  was  to  be  expected  from  the  inflated  real 
estate  values,  the  reaction  produced  by  the  panic 
of  1837  was  particularly  violent  in  Chicago.  For 
several  years  after  the  panic,  periods  of  inflated 
prices  were  succeeded  by  periods  of  depression. 
Some  of  these  variations  took  a  wide  range.  The 

Andreas,  History  of  Chicago,  I,  p.  115. 

2 Wright,  Chicago,  Past,  Present,  Future,  pp.  4-6. 

3Ibid.,  p.  6. 

4 'Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1878,  p.  44. 


96       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

high  prices  of  1843  were  followed  by  the  heavy 
decline  in  1845.  In  the  latter  year,  thirteen  canal 
lots  which  had  been  forfeited  by  their  former 
purchasers,  were  sold  for  $8,622.  These  same  lots 
had  formerly  been  appraised  at  $49,430.  In  the 
same  year,  a  syndicate  of  canal  creditors  accepted 
at  an  appraisement  of  $30,210,  lots  and  tracts 
which  had  brought  $94,405  in  October,  1843. 1 
However,  in  each  period  of  inflation  the  prices 
usually  rose  higher  than  in  the  preceding. 

Such  a  field  for  speculation  could  not  fail  to 
attract  population  and  investments.  But  not  all 
the  investments  were  of  a  speculative  character. 
Much  of  the  demand  for  farms  and  town  lots  came 
from  those  who  turned  their  faces  toward  the  canal 
region  to  make  it  their  future  home.  To  be  sure, 
the  increasing  demands  for  farms  and  business 
locations  and  the  estimates  placed  upon  the  future 
enlargement  of  those  demands  formed  the  basis 
for  the  speculation  which  from  time  to  time  placed 
abnormal  valuations  on  the  choice  tracts  of  land 
and  business  situations.  But  the  general  upward 
trend  of  real  estate  values  throughout  the  period 
depended  on  a  steadily  growing  population  and 
industry. 

The  entire  population  included  in  the  territory 
extending  from  Peoria  to  Wisconsin  on  the  north 
and  Indiana  on  the  east,  was  1310  in  i83O.2  By 
1835,  Cook  and  La  Salle  counties  had  been  created 
along  the  line  of  the  proposed  canal,  the  former 
having  a  population  of  9,826  and  the  latter  of 

'Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1878,  p.  49. 
^Twelfth  Census,  Population  I,  Part  I,  p.  16. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  97 

4,754.  The  river  section  of  the  route,  lying  be- 
tween the  proposed  western  terminus  of  the  canal 
and  Peoria,  was  comprised  in  Putnam  and  Peoria 
counties  with  a  combined  population  of  7,241,*  a 
net  gain  of  20,511  in  the  region  of  the  proposed 
waterway  in  five  years.  In  the  next  five  years 
the  population  of  this  region  rose  to  46,451  and 
in  1850,  it  had  reached  125,708.  The  population  of 
Chicago  grew  from  4,470  in  1840  to  12,088  in  1845 
and  28,269  in  i85O.2  It  was  in  the  neighborhood 
of  20,000  at  the  opening  of  the  canal  for  traffic.3 
The  economic  development  of  the  region  is 
further  shown  by  the  rapidity  with  which  the  land 
passed  from  public  to  private  ownership.  Of  the 
3,626,536  acres  of  public  land  in  the  Chicago  land 
district  on  May  29, 1835,  2,780,640  acres  had  been 
sold  to  individual  purchasers  by  November  I,  i847.4 

1  Illinois  House  Journal,  9th  General  Assembly,  2nd 
Session,  p.  86,  gives  the  state  census  by  counties  in  1835. 

2  Senate  Executive  Document,  No.    16,    34th    Cong., 
3rd  Sess.,  pp.  40-41. 

3The  population  given  for  1847  was  16,860  and  that 
for  1848  was  20,035. 

4  Report  of  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  member  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  Chicago  Harbor  and  River  Conven- 
tion, 1847,  p.  1 8.  The  yearly  sales  were  as  follows: 

Year  Acres  sold  Year  Acres  sold 

1835 370,043     1842 194,556 

1836 202,364     1843 229,460 

1837 15,697     1844 235,258 

1838 87,881     1845 220,525 

1839 160,635     ^46 198,849 

1840 137,382    1847  (toNov.i)  98,569 

1841 138,583    


98       THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

The  imports  and  exports  of  a  community  fairly 
indicate  the  condition  of  its  economic  develop- 
ment. Measured  by  this  standard,  the  economic 
development  of  the  canal  region  did  not  lag  behind 
its  growth  of  population.  During  the  period  under 
consideration,  the  import  and  export  trade  of  the 
region  chiefly  centered  at  Chicago,  as  it  has  since 
continued  to  do.  The  trade  at  Chicago  grew  and 
altered  in  character  with  the  development  of  the 
country  tributary  to  it.1 

'For  the  years  when  the  canal  was  in  process  of  con- 
struction, the  imports  and  exports  at  Chicago  were  as 
follows : 

Year  Imports  Exports 

1836 $325,203.90  $1,000.64 

1837 373^77-12  II,065.00 

1838 579,174.61  16,044.75 

1839 630,980.26  38,843.00 

1840 562,106.20  228,635.74 

1841 564,347.88  348,862.24 

1842 664,347.88  659,305.20 

1843 971,849.75  682,210.85 

1844 1,686,416.00  785,504.23 

1845 2,043,445.73  1,543,519.85 

1846 2,027,150.00  1,813,468.00 

1847 2,641,852.52  2,296,299.00 

Report  of  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  member  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  Chicago  Harbor  and  River  Conven- 
tion, 1847,  p.  15.  These  statistics  are  also  given  with 
the  omission  of  the  columns  for  cents  in  Andrews, 
Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade,  p.  218. 

The  leading  articles  of  export  for  the  six  years  pre- 
ceding the  opening  of  the  canal  and  the  quantities 
exported  were: 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  99 

The  second  period  of  influence  of  the  canal  began 
in  the  month  of  April,  I848.1  The  development 
of  the  region  during  nearly  two  decades  preceding 
had  been  in  anticipation  of  the  canal.  That  of 
the  next  six  years  was  due  to  a  partial  realization 
of  the  anticipations  with  which  the  project  had 
been  carried  to  consummation.  It  was  a  period  of 
large  industrial  growth.  For  several  months  after 
the  opening  of  the  canal  its  efficiency  was  adversely 
affected  by  an  insufficient  supply  of  water  on  the 
summit  level,2  and  by  an  insufficient  supply  of 
canal  boats  to  carry  the  commodities  and  pas- 


Bbls.  of  pork 

Year 

Bu.  of  wheat 

Bbls.  of  flour 

and  beef 

Lbs.  of  wool 

1842 

586,907 

2,920 

16,209 

1,500 

1843 

628,967 

10,786 

21,492 

22,050 

1844 

891,891 

6,320 

H,938 

96,635 

1845 

956,860 

13,752 

I3,268 

2l6,6l6 

1846 

1,459,594 

28,045 

31,224 

281,222 

I847 

1,974,304 

32,538 

48,920 

411,488 

first  boat,  the  General  Fry,  passed  over  the 
Summit  level  from  Lockport  to  Chicago  on  April  10, 
and  the  General  Thornton  made  the  first  trip  the 
entire  length  of  the  canal  from  La  Salle  to  Chicago, 
where  it  arrived  on  April  23.  In  the  canal  records 
April  19  is  regarded  as  the  date  of  the  opening  of 
the  canal. 

2The  Calumet  feeder  not  yet  being  completed,  the 
supply  of  water  for  the  Summit  level  had  to  be  pumped 
from  the  Chicago  River  at  Bridgeport.  The  porous 
condition  of  the  soil  on  some  of  the  sections  of  the  canal 
rendered  it  extremely  difficult  to  maintain  a  sufficient 
depth  of  water  for  the  navigation  of  loaded  boats. 


ioo      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

sengers  seeking  transportation.1  Before  the  close 
of  the  summer,  however,  the  traffic  had  assumed 
large  proportions.  Lumber  from  the  Great  Lakes 
and  merchandise  from  the  East  passed  down  the 
canal  for  distribution  to  the  canal  and  river  towns 
and  from  them  to  the  interior  settlements.  The 
farm  products  from  the  canal  region  and  from  the 
Illinois  River  and  sugar,  molasses,  coffee  and 
other  tropical  products  from  the  New  Orleans  and 
St.  Louis  markets  were  carried  to  Chicago  on 
their  way  to  northern  and  eastern  consumers.2 

With  improved  facilities  for  transportation  and 
with  the  rapid  industrial  development  of  the 
region  influenced  by  these  facilities,  the  traffic 
and  earnings  grew  almost  steadily  throughout  the 
period.  Only  in  1852  did  the  canal  fail  to  show  an 
annual  increase  in  earnings  and  in  that  year  the 
tolls  were  only  $4,723  less  than  in  1851.  They 
were  $43,073  more  than  for  any  previous  year.3 
During  this  period  the  annual  tolls  increased  from 
$87,890  to  $198,321.  The  decline  in  earnings  in 
1852  was  due  to  the  low  water  in  the  Illinois  River 

lAt  the  opening  of  the  canal  only  sixteen  boats  were 
in  commission  for  the  service. 

2  In  their  report  for  1848,  the  canal  trustees  mention 
with  evident  satisfaction  and  as  an  indication  of  large 
through-freight  business  in  the  future,  the  fact  that 
sugar  and  other  commodities  from  the  New  Orleans 
market  reached  Buffalo  by  way  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  on  April  30,  a  full  two  weeks  before 
the  first  boat  of  the  season  reached  that  city  on  the 
Erie  Canal. 

•For  the  annual  earnings  of  the  canal,  see  Appendix  I. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  101 

which  seriously  affected  the  "through"  business 
of  the  canal.1 

The  importance  of  the  through  traffic  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  in  1851,  44,000,000  feet  of  lumber, 
47,000,000  shingles,  and  11,000,000  lath  were  sent 
from  Chicago  to  points  beyond  the  western  ter- 
minus of  the  canal,  and  most  of  the  3,221,317 
bushels  of  corn  received  at  Chicago  that  year, 
came  from  the  Illinois  River.2  From  1851  to  1852 
there  was  a  decline  of  4,334,976  feet  of  lumber, 
1,067,670  bushels  of  corn,  and  10,057  barrels  of 
salt  and  4,134  barrels  of  pork  carried  on  the 
canal.  But  these  losses  were  partially  offset  by 
a  gain  of  39,379  bushels  of  wheat,  231,826  pounds 
of  sugar  and  1,214,418  pounds  of  merchandise.3 
The  net  result  of  these  changes  was  the  small 
reduction  in  earnings  already  noted.  In  1853  the 
water  supply  continued  insufficient.  There  was 
sufficient  gain  in  traffic,  however,  to  regain  the 
loss  of  the  previous  year.  The  tolls  exceeded 
those  of  1851  by  seventy-two  dollars  and  those  of 
1852  by  $4,795.  The  increased  earnings  over 
1852  were  chiefly  derived  from  larger  shipments  of 
pork,  wheat,  corn,  sugar  and  lumber.4  But,  in 

xThe  low  water  in  the  Illinois  River  was  equally 
injurious  to  the  St.  Louis  trade.  Annual  Report  of  St. 
Louis  Trade  and  Commerce,  1852,  pp.  9-14;  also  Report 
of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1852,  p.  3. 

2  Andrews,  Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade,  p.  220. 

*  Swift's  Annual  Circular  (Report  to  the  creditors), 
1854,  p.  14. 

4Ibid.,  p.  14. 


io2      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 


spite  of  the  river  conditions,  the  canal  traffic  and 
earnings  continued  to  grow.1 

Chicago,  Peoria,  and  St.  Louis  were  directly 
affected  by  the  canal  as  a  transportation  route. 
Of  the  three,  St.  Louis  was  the  only  one  affected 
adversely  and  that  only  in  a  limited  field.  Before 
the  opening  of  the  canal,  the  Illinois  River  trade 
was  tributary  to  St.  Louis.  After  the  opening  of 
the  canal,  most  of  it  became  tributary  to  Chicago. 
For  southern  products,  St.  Louis  still  held  the 
territory,  but  the  merchandise  came  principally 
through  the  canal  and  the  products  of  the  region 
largely  sought  the  Chicago  market.  The  Annual 
Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis  for 
1848  accounts  for  the  decrease  of  316,625  bushels 
of  corn  and  237,588  bushels  of  wheat  received  in 
that  market  as  compared  with  the  receipts  of  the 
previous  year  in  the  following  words:  "The  deficit 
may  be  accounted  for  from  the  opening  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  which  drew  off  to 
Chicago  and  other  points  on  the  Lakes,  the  accus- 
tomed heavy  arrivals  from  the  Illinois  River,  and 

JThe  five  leading  articles  of  commerce  carried  on  the 
canal  during  the  period  were  wheat,  corn,  sugar,  mer- 
chandise and  lumber.  The  quantity  of  each  of  these 
commodities  carried  is  shown  in  the  following  tabula- 
tion: 

Sugar,  Ibs.  Mdse.,  Ibs.  Lumber,  feet 

3,219,122  4,948,000  15,425,357 

4,218,298  9,176,943  26,882,000 

5,680,324  10,372,623  38,687,528 

4,591,471  I4,I7S»928  56,845,027 

4,822,297  15,390,346  52,510,051 

7,332,032  10.687,598  58,500,438 


Year      Wheat,  bu.  Corn.bu. 

1848  454,111  516,230 

1849  579,598  754,288 
417,036 


1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 


317,674 
78,062  2,878,550 
117,441  1,810,880 
340,277  2,490,675 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  103 

greatly  lessened  the  aggregate  amount  received  at 
this  port."1  The  next  year  showed  a  still  greater 
decrease.2  Henceforth,  St.  Louis  could  hope  to 
draw  the  major  part  of  the  grain  from  the  Illinois 
River  only  when  temporary  market  conditions 
should  chance  to  give  that  market  an  advantage 
in  price.  The  freight  rates  from  the  Illinois  River 
to  the  eastern  cities  by  way  of  Chicago  and  Buffalo 
were  lower  than  those  by  way  of  St.  Louis  and 
New  Orleans.3  Consequently  the  grain  from  that 
region  intended  for  the  Atlantic  seaboard  cities  or 
for  foreign  export  normally  sought  the  northern 
route. 

St.  Louis  was  compensated  for  this  loss,  how- 
ever, by  an  enlargement  of  her  mercantile  interests. 
The  wholesale  grocers  found  new  markets  for 
sugar,  coffee,  tobacco,  and  other  products  of  the 
lower  Mississippi  trade.4  Eastern  merchandise 
for  which  St.  Louis  was  the  distributing  point  for 
the  rapidly  developing  regions  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, could  be  obtained  more  expeditiously  and 
cheaply  by  way  of  the  canal  than  by  way  of  New 
Orleans.5  From  1845  to  1853  the  grocery  business 

1  Annual  Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis, 
1848,  p.  7. 

2The  receipts  of  corn  decreased  393,829  bushels  and 
those  of  wheat  402,254  bushels. 

3  Annual  Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis, 
1852,  p.  9. 

4  Annual  Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis, 
1848,  pp.  2,  10. 

8Andrews,  Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade,  p.  220. 


io4     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

of  St.  Louis  advanced  from  #1,134,367  to  #5,018- 
677  and  the  hardware  business  from  #251,259  to 
#904,316.  Between  1846  and  1851  the  imports  of 
coffee  rose  from  65,000  bags  to  102,000  bags  and 
sugar  from  17,000  packages  to  66,000  packages. 
The  sales  of  dry  goods  in  1841  amounted  to 
#1,300,000;  in  1852  they  reached  #7,ooo,ooo.1 
This  growth  of  trade  was  not  wholly  due  to  the 
opening  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  but 
was  greatly  facilitated  by  it. 

The  opening  of  the  canal  gave  a  strong  impetus 
to  the  development  of  Peoria.  Although  checked 
in  its  growth  by  the  cholera  of  1849-50,  the  popu- 
lation increased  from  3,014  in  1847  to  6,202  at  the 
close  of  i85O.2  Five  hundred  and  seventy-nine 
buildings  were  erected  in  the  three  years,  1848, 
1849,  and  i850.3  These  building  operations  were 
facilitated  by  the  cheapening  of  lumber  through 
the  opening  of  the  canal  giving  access  to  the  north- 
ern lumber  regions.  In  1848  the  canal  brought 
large  quantities  of  pine  and  cedar  lumber  from  the 
northern  forests,  reducing  the  price  to  about  half 
that  of  the  preceding  year  when  the  supply  was 
received  from  the  St.  Louis  and  Pittsburgh  mark- 
ets.4 Business  prospered  generally.  By  1850  the 
importations  of  merchandise,  lumber,  and  other 

1  Annual  Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis, 
1856,  p.  9. 

2  Drown,  Record  and  Historical  View  of  Peoria,  p.  146. 
'Ibid.,  p.  147. 

4Ibid.,  p.  105. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  105 

commodities  had  quadrupled  since  I847.1  During 
the  season  of  1850  six  packets  made  regular  weekly 
trips  between  St.  Louis  and  La  Salle.  Twenty- 
seven  steamers  served  as  tow-boats  each  towing 
from  two  to  fourteen  canal  boats  at  a  time.  Aside 
from  the  canal  boats  and  flat  boats  an  aggregate 
of  1286  steamers  touched  at  the  Peoria  wharf  dur- 
ing the  season,  an  increase  of  more  than  300  since 
i847.2  The  number  of  steamers  at  the  wharf, 
however,  does  not  convey  a  correct  impression 
of  the  relative  amount  of  business  done  during  these 
two  years,  because  much  of  the  imports  and  exports 
of  the  latter  year  were  carried  on  canal  boats,  the 
number  of  which  was  not  recorded.  A  record  was 
kept  only  of  the  steamers  that  had  them  in  tow.3 

1  Drown,  Record  and  Historical  View  of  Peoria,  p.  107. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  107-109. 

3Ibid.,  p.  144.  The  exports  for  1851  amounted  to 
$1,227,134.10,  the  most  important  items  of  which  were: 

Corn,  628,719  bu.  at  $0.40  per  bu $251,487.60 

Wheat,  151,465  bu.  at  $0.68  per  bu 102,996.20 

Oats,  262,357  bu.  at  $0.35  per  bu 92,874.05 

Flour,  35,753  bbls.  at$4.5Operbbl 151,888.50 

Whiskey,  5,685  bbls.  at  $10.00  per  bbl . .  56,850.00 

Wool,  250,760  Ibs.  at  $0.30  per  Ib 75,228.00 

Dry  hides,  10,701  hides  at  $2.00  per 

hide 21,402.00 

Coal,  20,580  tons,  at  $2.50  per  ton 51,450.00 

Beef  cattle,  1,719  head  at  $15.00  per 

head 25,785.00 

Hogs,  26,796  head,  at  $7.00  per  head . .  185,572.00 

Cooperage — valued  at 47,785.00 

Sundries — potatoes,  eggs,  fruit,  etc. .  .  .  25,000.00 

Manufactures  100,000.00 


io6      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

The  remarkable  growth  of  Chicago  during  the 
twelve  years  of  construction  of  the  canal  was  far 
surpassed  during  the  first  six  years  of  its  operation.1 
The  economic  development  of  the  country  tribu- 
tary to  the  city  necessarily  increased  its  imports 
and  exports  which  led  in  turn  to  an  increase  in 
the  population  and  wealth  of  the  city  itself.  The 
population  of  the  four  canal  counties  which  had 
increased  from  a  few  hundred  in  1830  to  29,716 
in  1840  and  80,926  in  1850,  more  than  doubled  in 
the  next  five  years,  reaching  171,012  in  i855.2 
Almost  an  equal  gain  was  made  by  the  river 
counties  from  La  Salle  to  the  mouth  of  the  Sanga- 
mon.  From  40,536  in  1840,  their  population  rose 
to  90,961  in  1850  and  128,462  in  1855.  It  is  thus 
seen  that  the  population  along  the  waterway  from 
Lake  Michigan  to  the  mouth  of  the  Sangamon 
River  increased  from  70,252  in  1840  to  171,887 
in  1850  and  299,474  in  1855.  But  the  growth  of 
population  was  not  confined  to  the  counties  imme- 
diately touching  the  canal  and  the  upper  course 
of  the  Illinois  River.  As  the  better  tracts  of  land 
in  these  counties  were  taken  up,  settlements  con- 
tinually spread  further  back  into  the  unoccupied 
sections.  By  1855  more  than  half  the  population 

1  Senate  Executive  Document,  No.  16,  34th  Cong., 
3rd  Sess.,  pp.  40-41. 

8The  population  is  not  obtainable  for  1848,  the 
beginning  of  canal  traffic,  nor  for  1854,  the  year  when 
railway  competition  began.  The  figures  for  1840  and 
1850  are  taken  from  the  federal  census  and  those  for 
1855  from  the  Illinois  state  census  of  that  year. 


Shipping  crowded  at  the  mouth  of  the  Chicago 
River  by  the  flood  in  the  Des  Plaines  March  12, 
1849.  This  is  probably  the  earliest  camera  view 
of  the  river  in  existence,  the  original  being  a  da- 
guerreotype by  P.  von  Schneidau.  Fort  Dearborn 
is  shown  at  the  right. 


and  h   led  in  turn  to 

;.;*;  ilth  of  the  cii 

al  counties  v 

in   1830  to  29,716 

re  than  doubled  in 

171,012   in    i855.2 

t"de   by   the   river 

,e  mouth  of  the  Sanga- 

ri^ltelro|?Equqfeion  rose 
Hufrf2&4ti  i  &tf  thus 

ft  ftiit&B  ^ioikft.'.  from 

^4  /ittnrii.'ori;  •  . 
I  -*I 

474  i      - 

ounties  imme- 

diate!. -'g  the  c  the  upper  course 

of  the  Illinois  tracts  of  land 

mnties  were  taken  up,  settlements  con- 

1  further  back  into  the  unoccupied 

;    half  the  population 

• 
>p.  40-41. 

,    the 
when 

railway  t  egan.      J  1840  and 

1850  j  1  those  for 

1855-  frorr.  th<    .  oar. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  107 

of  the  state  was  to  be  found  north  of  the  Sangamon 
River,1  and  the  most  densely  populated  counties 
lay  in  the  region  of  the  waterway.2 

During  the  first  period  of  canal  operation,  from 
1848  to  1854,  the  population  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
advanced  from  20,035  to  74,5OO.3  But  the  en- 
largement of  commerce  more  than  kept  pace  with 
the  growth  in  population.  The  grain  exports 
grew  from  3,001,740  bushels  to  13,132,501  bushels, 
the  shipments  of  corn  alone  increasing  from  550,460 
bushels  to  6,837,890  bushels.4  By  1851  the  Chi- 
cago exports  had  reached  $5,395,471  and  the 
imports,  $24,4io,4OO.8  The  heavy  preponderance 

lOi  the  1,300,251  inhabitants  of  the  state  in  that 
year,  737,867  were  north  of  the  Sangamon  River. 

2 Of  the  five  counties  in  the  state  having  a  population 
of  more  than  3O,-ooo  in  1855,  Cook,  La  Salle  and 
Peoria  were  on  the  waterway  and  Madison  and  Adams 
on  the  Mississippi.  The  areas  of  densest  population  in 
the  state  were  in  Cook,  Kane,  and  Peoria  counties. 
Two  of  these  were  on  the  waterway  and  the  other  was 
connected  with  it  by  way  of  the  Fox  River  and  was 
also  within  wagoning  distance  of  Chicago.  Moreover, 
since  1851  Kane  county  had  been  connected  directly 
with  Chicago  by  the  Galena  and  Chicago  Union  Rail- 
road. Gerhard,  Illinois  As  It  Is,  pp.  221-224. 

3 Senate  Executive  Document,  No.  16,  34th  Cong., 
3rd  Sess.,  pp.  40-41. 

4  Annual  Report  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Trade,  1905, 
p.  19. 

5Andrews,  Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade,  pp. 
220-222. 

Of  these  imports  the  chief  items  were: 


io8      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

of  imports  over  exports  is  accounted  for  chiefly  by 
the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  imports 
passed  through  the  canal  to  the  regions  whose  pro- 
ducts found  their  way  to  other  markets.  Large 
quantities  of  ready  made  clothing,  hats,  caps, 
boots,  and  shoes,  and  other  manufactured  products 
intended  for  the  St.  Louis  market  were  imported 
through  Chicago  and  were  carried  by  canal  and 
river  to  St.  Louis  from  which  city  they  were  dis- 
tributed to  the  newer  portions  of  the  West. 

The  extension  of  settlement  to  portions  of  the 
state  not  easily  accessible  to  the  waterway  led  to  a 
demand  for  railroad  connection  with  the  markets. 
Of  the  lines  of  railroad  projected  to  meet  this 
demand,  one  was  destined  to  come  into  inevitable 
rivalry  with  the  canal.  For  many  years  the 
question  of  the  construction  of  a  canal  or  railroad 

Merchandise $21,081,300 

Lumber,  shingles,  and  lath 1,698,755 

Iron 41 1,440 

Sugar 282,582 

Salt 192,811 

Coal 150,000 

Coffee 135,792 

The  leading  exports  of  the  year  were: 

Merchandise $1,245,500 

Corn 1,159,674 

Furs 564,500 

Wheat  and  flour 477,253 

Beef,  tallow,  and  hides 523,644 

Pork,  hams,  and  shoulders 400,816 

Wool 326,083 

Lard 238,140 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  109 

from  the  Illinois  River  near  the  terminus  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  to  the  Mississippi  at 
Rock  Island,  had  been  agitated.  On  February 
27,  1847,  the  Rock  Island  and  La  Salle  Railroad 
Company  was  chartered  to  construct  a  road  be- 
tween these  two  points.1  It  was  expected  that 
this  road  would  prove  an  important  feeder  for  the 
canal  by  developing  the  region  between  the  two 
rivers  and  also  by  tapping  the  upper  Mississippi 
trade  and  drawing  it  to  Chicago  through  the  canal. 
An  amendment  of  the  charter,  February  7,  1851, 
however,  authorized  the  extension  of  the  road  to 
Chicago  and  designated  the  corporation  as  the 
Chicago  and  Rock  Island  Railroad  Company.2 
It  was  the  evident  intention  of  the  legislators  in 
granting  the  right  of  extension,  to  make  the  rail- 
road supplementary  to  the  canal  rather  than  a 
competitor  for  its  traffic.  Therefore,  following 
the  example  of  New  York  regarding  railway  com- 
petition with  the  Erie  Canal,  the  act  granting  the 
charter  provided  for  compensation  to  the  canal  for 
losses  of  freight  traffic  by  reason  of  railroad  com- 
petition.3 It  required  that  for  all  freight  except 
live  stock,  carried  by  the  road  when  the  canal  was 
open  for  traffic,  and  originating  between  a  point 
twenty  miles  west  of  La  Salle  and  the  eastern 
terminus  of  the  road  at  Chicago,  the  company 

Crosby,  History  of  the  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific 
Railway,  p.  2. 

2  Ibid.,  pp.  2-3. 

3  Cf .  Prentice,  Federal  Power  Over  Carriers  and  Corpor- 
ations, pp.  94-95. 


no     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

should  pay  to  the  canal  trustees,  tolls  equal  to 
those  which  the  canal  would  have  earned  if  the 
freight  had  been  carried  on  that  route.1 

Through  a  blunder  of  the  trustees  the  road 
escaped  the  burden  of  this  provision.2  A  formal 
grant  by  the  trustees  of  a  right  of  way  through  the 
canal  lands  not  later  than  the  first  Monday  in 
June,  1851,  was  necessary  in  order  to  obligate  the 
company  to  observe  this  provision  of  the  act  of 
incorporation.  Advised  that  the  right  of  eminent 
domain  could  not  be  exercised  in  the  case  of  land 
granted  for  public  use,  the  trustees  refused  to  make 
the  grant,  thinking  in  this  way  to  prevent  railway 
competition.  The  company  instituted  successful 
condemnation  proceedings  and  the  trustees  failed 
in  an  effort  to  enjoin  the  construction  of  the  road 
through  canal  lands.  The  work  of  construction 
was  begun  in  April,  1852,  and  the  road  was  opened 
for  traffic  from  Chicago  to  Rock  Island  in  the 
summer  of  1854.  In  the  same  year  the  Bureau 
Valley  Railroad  was  completed  from  Bureau 
Junction  on  the  Chicago  and  Rock  Island  to 

*The  act  granting  the  charter  also  provided  that  all 
freights  carried  by  other  railroads  extending  from 
Chicago  to  points  on  the  canal  or  to  points  on  the 
Illinois  River  within  twenty  miles  of  the  terminus  of  the 
canal,  should  be  subject  to  the  same  rates  of  toll  as 
those  imposed  on  the  Chicago  and  Rock  Island  Rail- 
road. 

zlt  is  not  probable  that  such  a  provision  could  have 
remained  operative  for  any  great  length  of  time. 
It  was  an  impossible  provision  as  the  experience  of 
New  York  proved. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  in 

Peoria,  and  leased  in  perpetuity  to  the  latter  cor- 
poration. Thus,  before  the  close  of  1854  tne 
railroad  was  in  competition  with  the  waterway 
from  Chicago  to  Peoria  and  was  supported  by  a 
rapidly  developing  country  between  the  Illinois 
and  Mississippi  Rivers  and  on  the  upper  Mis- 
sissippi. 

The  opening  of  the  railroad  for  traffic  along  the 
line  of  the  canal  ushered  in  the  third  period  of  the 
canal  influence.  The  inevitable  contest  for  the 
traffic  of  the  region  common  to  both  transporta- 
tion lines,  began  at  once.  The  railroad  easily 
took  from  the  canal  the  passenger  traffic,  which 
had  assumed  considerable  proportions.  For  six 
years  the  canal  and  river  route  had  been  a  popular 
one  with  western  travelers.  An  excellent  line  of 
packets  operated  between  Chicago  and  La  Salle 
and  an  equally  good  packet  service  was  provided 
for  the  river  trip  from  La  Salle  to  St.  Louis.1  But 
within  a  few  months  after  the  opening  of  the  rail- 
road, practically  all  the  passenger  business  deserted 
the  canal  for  the  speedier  mode  of  travel.2  The 
contest  for  freight,  however,  was  long  and  spirited. 

1  Gould,  Fifty  Years  on  the  Mississippi,  p.  522. 

2The  railroad  was  opened  from  Chicago  to  Joliet  in 
1853  and  at  once  became  a  favorite  route  for  passengers 
between  these  two  cities.  As  a  result  the  passenger 
traffic  on  the  canal  was  reduced  to  25,966  for  the 
year.  With  the  opening  of  the  railroad  the  entire 
length  of  the  canal  the  following  year,  practically  all 
the  passenger  business  between  Joliet  and  La  Salle 
also  deserted  the  canal. 


ii2     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

In  the  end,  the  railroad  secured  most  of  this  traffic 
also,  but  only  after  its  service  and  its  charges  had 
been  greatly  affected  by  the  struggle.  Both  by  its 
traffic  and  by  the  effect  of  its  actual  or  potential 
competition  on  railroad  rates,  the  canal  has  con- 
tinued to  influence  the  development  of  the  region 
in  which  it  is  located  though  with  diminishing  ef- 
fect. Naturally  the  high  class  freights  were  the 
first  to  seek  the  more  rapid  means  of  transporta- 
tion. Lumber,  grain,  .coal  and  stone  continued  to 
be  transported  on  the  canal  in  large  quantities  for 
several  years  after  the  higher  class  freight  had 
chiefly  gone  to  the  railroad.  For  the  commercial 
year,  from  April  I,  1866,  to  March  31,  1867,  33- 
929,632  bushels  of  corn  were  received  at  Chicago, 
of  which  9,575,569  bushels  were  carried  on  the 
canal  and  4,279,190  bushels  on  the  Chicago  and 
Rock  Island  Railroad.1  Of  the  10,713,981  bushels 
of  oats  received  during  the  same  period,  1,417,436 
bushels  came  by  the  canal  and  982,761  bushels  by 
the  competing  railroad.2  This,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  railroad  operated  407  miles  of  line  and 

1  Wright,  Chicago,  p.  154. 

2The  railroad  carried  1,420,163  bushels  of  wheat  and 
179,316  barrels  of  flour  as  against  83,834  bushels  of 
wheat  and  45,317  barrels  of  flour  carried  by  the  canal. 
It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  at  this  time 
the  railroad  was  completed  and  open  for  traffic,  almost 
to  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  and  drew  much  of  its  grain 
traffic  from  non-competitive  territory.  There  are  no 
statistics  which  show  what  proportion  of  the  wheat 
and  flour  produced  in  the  canal  region  was  carried 
by  each  of  the  competitors. 


MILES  RUN  AND   FREIGHT  TRANSPORTED  ON  THE 
ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL,  1860-1915 


I 

MILES  RUN        - 
TONS  CARRIED 


i. 


A 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  113 

drew  its  traffic  all  the  way  from  central  Iowa.1 
12,722,569  bushels  of  corn  were  transported  to 
Chicago  on  the  canal  in  1873  and  1874,  or  an 
annual  average  of  51,300  bushels  for  each  of  the 
124  miles  of  canal  and  river  route  operated  by  the 
canal  commissioners  in  competition  with  the  rail- 
road.2 In  the  same  time  the  Chicago  and  Rock 
Island  Railroad  carried  to  Chicago  8,547,187  bush- 
els, or  an  annual  average  of  6,284  bushels  for  each 
of  the  680  miles  of  road  then  operated  by  the 
company.3 

By  the  reduction  of  canal  charges  from  time  to 
time,  by  the  personal  solicitation  of  freight  by  the 
boat  owners,  and  by  the  permission  of  boat  owners 
to  shippers  to  use  the  boats  for  storage  purposes 
when  navigation  was  closed,  the  canal  traffic  con- 
tinued to  increase  till  1882,  in  which  year  the 
tonnage  carried  was  1,011,287  tons.  From  that 
year  till  1899  the  amount  of  freight  carried  annu- 
ally declined  at  a  variable  rate.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  1898,  however,  the  tonnage  stayed  well 
above  400,000  tons  a  year  till  1900,  when  it  sud- 

*In  1866  the  main  line  of  the  Chicago  and  Rock 
Island  Railroad  extended  to  Kellogg,  Iowa,  and  the 
Oskaloosa  branch  to  Washington,  in  the  same  state. 

2Until  the  opening  of  railroad  traffic  between  the 
various  Illinois  River  towns  and  Chicago,  large  quanti- 
ties of  grain  were  sent  to  market  through  the  canal 
from  as  far  down  the  river  as  Beardstown.  By  1873, 
however,  the  greater  part  of  this  traffic  had  gone 
to  the  railroads. 

3  Special  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1875, 
p.  10. 


ii4     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

denly  dropped  to  121,759  tons  and  has  since  con- 
tinued its  downward  course.  While  the  reduction 
of  canal  charges  assisted  in  preserving  traffic  for 
the  boat  owners  and  in  keeping  up  the  canal  ton- 
nage, it  operated  adversely  on  the  canal  earnings. 
The  maximum  tolls  were  received  in  1866,  and 
amounted  to  $302,958. l  By  1877  the  annual  tolls 
had  fallen  below  $ioo,ooo,2  and  in  1882,  the  year 
of  the  maximum  tonnage,  they  were  only  $85,947. 
Since  that  time  the  decline  in  earnings  has  about 
kept  pace  with  the  decline  in  tonnage. 

In  recent  years,  the  traffic  and  earnings  of  the 
canal  and  its  relative  importance  as  a  transporta- 
tion route,  have  declined  rapidly.  In  1905,  of  the 
7,944,955  barrels  of  flour  received  in  the  Chicago 
market  21,216  came  by  the  canal,  while  none  of 
the  26,899,012  bushels  of  wheat  and  only  35,300 
bushels  of  the  92,486,761  bushels  of  oats  were 
carried  on  the  canal.  As  usual,  the  corn  shipments 
exceeded  those  of  any  other  single  commodity, 
amounting  to  326,802  bushels  of  the  110,823,444 

Decent  canal  reports  give  the  tolls  for  1866  as 
$202,958.  The  statement  is  due  to  a  typographical 
error  which  has  been  copied  from  year  to  year.  The 
correct  figures  will  be  found  in  all  the  reports  up  to 
1882. 

2 Since  1879,  the  gross  expenditures  of  the  canal  have 
regularly  exceeded  the  tolls.  In  1907,  the  expenditures 
were  $50,050  and  the  tolls  were  $2,176.87.  In  this 
year,  however,  the  canal  had  an  income  from  rentals, 
water-power,  leases,  etc.,  of  $11,933.79,  giving  it  a 
total  income  of  $14,110.67,  and  leaving  an  excess  of 
expenditures  over  earnings  of  $35,939.34. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  115 

bushels  received  at  Chicago.  Neither  rye  nor 
barley  were  found  among  the  shipments  on  the 
canal,  although  2,392,444  bushels  of  the  former 
and  28,074,142  bushels  of  the  latter  were  received 
in  the  Chicago  market.  Of  the  1,110,371,601 
pounds  of  dressed  beef,  1,160,572,790  pounds  and 
144,909  barrels  of  pork  products  shipped  from 
Chicago  during  the  year,  not  a  pound  was  carried 
on  the  canal.1  Such  products  as  coal,  potatoes, 
beans,  salt  and  corn  products  were  carried  entirely 
by  the  railroads,  and  only  66,000  cubic  feet  of 
stone  found  its  way  to  Chicago  on  the  canal. 

The  ultimate  loss  of  the  canal  traffic  has  been 
due  to  several  causes.  The  first  in  point  of  time 
was  the  condition  of  the  Illinois  River,  which 
often,  for  months  continuously,  was  unnavigable 
by  canal  boats  and  frequently  by  river  steamers.2 
The  inability  of  the  canal  boats  to  navigate  the 

1  Report  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Trade,  1905,  pp.  2, 
5,  10,  16,  42,  43. 

2Almost  every  year  from  the  opening  of  the  canal, 
the  trustees  called  attention  to  the  necessity  of  a 
sufficient  depth  of  water  in  the  Illinois  River  to  float 
canal  boats  throughout  the  season  of  navigation.  In 
1856,  from  the  middle  of  June  till  late  in  November 
there  was  not  more  than  twenty  inches  of  water  on 
some  of  the  most  troublesome  sand-bars  in  the  river. 
Navigation  was  practically  suspended  during  a  period 
of  nearly  six  months.  The  trustees  estimated  that  the 
revenues  of  the  canal  were  reduced  $55,000  or  $60,000 
below  what  might  reasonably  have  been  expected 
had  there  been  sufficient  depth  of  water  to  navigate 
the  canal  boats  carrying  through  freight. 


n6     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

river  necessitated  the  transfer  of  freight  to  the 
river  steamers  at  La  Salle,  with  the  consequent 
delay  and  expense.  The  failure  of  steamboat 
navigation  restricted  the  canal  to  local  traffic. 
The  canal  management  recognized  the  importance 
of  an  unobstructed  channel  from  La  Salle  to  St. 
Louis,  but  the  state  and  federal  governments  acted 
too  tardily  on  the  constant  appeals  of  the  trustees 
and  commissioners  to  afford  effective  relief.1  The 
frequent  interruptions  of  river  traffic  led  the  river 
towns  to  rely  less  on  water  transportation  and  to 
turn  to  the  railroad  as  offering  a  solution  of  their 
transportation  difficulties.2 

In  the  contest  for  traffic  the  railroad  possessed 
not  only  the  advantages  of  greater  speed  and 
freedom  from  the  effects  of  freshets  and  droughts, 
which  so  seriously  affected  the  river  portion  of  the 
waterway,  but  it  also  gave  a  more  convenient  and 
satisfactory  service  to  many  of  the  shippers  who 
had  formerly  used  the  canal.  Before  the  open- 
ing of  railroad  transportation,  shippers  had  hauled 
their  commodities  long  distances  to  the  canal. 
The  building  of  railroads  drew  from  the  canal 
much  of  the  traffic  of  these  outlying  regions,  by 
offering  a  more  convenient  transportation  route. 
The  railroads  built  branches  and  established 
stations  at  points  more  convenient  to  the  farms 
and  inland  villages  than  were  the  shipping  points 

*For  an  account  of  the  construction  of  locks  and 
dams,  see  Chapter  V,  pp.  136-138. 

2  Annual  Review  of  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St.  Louis, 
1854,  p.  ii  and  1859,  p.  48. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  117 

on  the  waterway.  The  greater  convenience  of 
the  railway  service  also  materially  aided  in  taking 
traffic  from  the  canal  in  the  canal  towns  and  cities. 
In  the  early  years  of  the  contest  between  the 
rival  transportation  agencies,  the  terminal  facil- 
ities for  handling  freight  on  the  two  routes,  were 
not  very  different.  Whatever  advantage  existed 
was  in  favor  of  the  canal.  Warehouses  for  the 
receipt,  storage  and  shipment  of  grain  and  mer- 
chandise were  established  on  its  banks.  Mills 
and  factories  largely  depended  on  it  for  both 
power  and  transportation  facilities.  But,  as  the 
years  passed  by,  the  railway  facilities  were  im- 
proved and  those  of  the  canal  were  not.  Then 
the  owners  of  warehouses  and  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments, grain  shippers  and  others  largely 
engaged  in  transportation,  showed  a  tendency  to 
desert  the  canal  and  transfer  their  business  to  the 
railroad.  Wherever  business  establishments  were 
kept  up  on  the  canal,  the  railroad  usually  con- 
structed side-tracks  to  them,  and  became  a  com- 
petitor for  business  on  the  very  banks  of  the  canal 
itself. 

The  terminal  facilities  at  Chicago  have  been 
especially  advantageous  to  the  railroads.  Spurs 
have  been  run  to  all  the  large  manufacturing  es- 
tablishments, to  the  grain  elevators,  to  the  lumber 
yards,  to  the  stock  yards,  and  to  every  other  point 
where  it  is  possible  to  place  a  track  needed  for  the 
delivery  of  incoming  freight  or  for  the  receipt  of 
that  intended  for  shipment.  Many  of  those  are 
inaccessible  to  the  waterway,  while  through  the 


n8     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

reciprocal  switching  arrangements  among  the 
railroads,  they  are  all  accessible  to  every  railroad 
entering  the  city.  This  advantage  of  the  railroad 
over  the  canal  is  well  illustrated  in  the  handling  of 
building  stone.  When  the  stone  is  intended  for 
use  at  any  considerable  distance  from  the  canal, 
it  is  found  cheaper  to  transport  it  from  the  quarries 
along  the  canal  by  rail  and  switch  the  cars  to  the 
nearest  rail  point,  than  to  pay  the  lower  freight 
rates  on  the  canal  and  incur  the  heavier  expense 
for  the  longer  haul  by  teams  in  the  city.  Only  a 
part  of  the  grain  elevators  are  located  on  the 
waterway,  while  all  are  accessible  to  the  railroads. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  coal  yards.  Formerly 
large  quantities  of  coal  were  shipped  from  the 
Spring  Valley  district  to  Chicago  by  way  of  the 
canal.  Now,  none  is  transported  on  the  canal. 

The  system  of  pro-rating  freight  charges,  how- 
ever, has  done  more  than  any  other  one  thing  to 
undermine  the  canal  traffic.  The  practice  of  pro- 
rating grain  from  the  canal  region  began  in  1879 
and  consisted  of  an  arrangement  between  the 
traffic  officials  of  the  Lake  Shore  and  Michigan 
Southern  and  those  of  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and 
Pacific  Railroads  whereby  the  Lake  Shore  cars 
should  be  hauled  by  the  Rock  Island  road  from 
Chicago  to  the  loading  point  along  the  canal  and 
be  returned  loaded  for  transportation  to  the  sea- 
board cities.  For  this  service  the  Rock  Island 
received  ten  per  cent  of  the  Chicago-New  York 
rate  with  a  minimum  of  two  cents  a  hundred 
pounds  for  hauling  the  cars.  Since  an  elevator 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  119 

charge  of  a  cent  and  a  fourth  a  bushel  had  to  be 
met  at  Chicago  on  all  grain  shipped  on  the  canal, 
while  the  loaded  cars  passed  through  the  city 
without  the  necessity  of  rehandling  the  grain,  the 
pro-rating  arrangement  proved  a  serious  obstacle 
to  the  canal  shippers  of  grain  intended  for  the 
eastern  markets.1  As  early  as  1877  William 
Thomas,  the  General  Superintendent  of  the  canal, 
complained  that  grain  was  being  driven  from  the 
canal  by  the  discrimination  of  the  owners  of 
Chicago  elevators  in  favor  of  the  railroads  and  by 
injustice  in  grain  inspection.2  While  there  may 
have  been  some  basis  for  these  charges,  the 
tendency  of  the  grain  to  leave  the  canal  at  Joliet 
seems  to  have  been  more  largely  due  to  the  com- 
petition of  the  Michigan  Central  Railroad  for 
an  increasing  share  of  the  eastern  grain  shipments. 
The  Michigan  Central  at  Joliet  and  the  Toledo, 
Peoria  and  Western  at  Peoria,  with  their  eastern 
connections,  have  been  able  to  make  rates  on 
eastern  grain  shipments  which  could  not  be  met 
by  any  combination  of  local  rates.  As  a  con- 

*The  statement  is  made  on  the  authority  of  Mr- 
Noble  Jones  of  Mokena,  Illinois,  who  was  a  grain 
shipper  from  the  canal  towns  and  at  whose  instance 
the  pro-rating  arrangement  was  made  in  1879.  The 
statement  has  been  verified  by  Mr.  James  L.  Clark, 
General  Western  Freight  Agent  of  the  Lake  Shore  and 
Michigan  Southern  Railroad  and  by  Mr.  William 
Borner,  General  Freight  Agent  of  the  Chicago,  Pitts- 
burgh and  Ft.  Wayne  Railroad,  both  of  whom  were  then 
connected  with  the  roads  interested  in  the  agreement. 

2 Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1877,  p.  38. 


120      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

sequence  the  canal  has  been  unable  for  several 
years  to  handle  grain  from  these  points.  In  recent 
years,  the  Peoria-New  York  rate  has  ordinarily 
been  about  a  cent  and  a  half  a  hundred  pounds 
above  the  Chicago-New  York  rate.1  It  is  clearly 
impossible  for  the  waterway  to  carry  the  grain  to 
Chicago  and  transfer  it  to  eastern  carriers  in  com- 
petition with  this  rate.  Joliet  has  had  the  same 
rate  as  Chicago  for  grain  billed  through  to  New 
York  whether  it  goes  by  the  Michigan  Central  or 
through  Chicago.  Under  the  rules  of  shipment, 
grain  may  be  unloaded  at  Chicago  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  ten  days  and  reshipped  on  the 
same  bill  of  lading.  The  result  has  been  that  all 
grain  intended  for  the  Chicago  market  from  Joliet 
has  been  billed  to  New  York  and  the  cars  used  to 
carry  other  grain  from  Chicago  to  New  York  on 
the  through  bill  of  lading.2  At  other  points  along  the 
waterway,  however,  the  water  transportation  has 
been  able  to  withstand  the  competition  of  the  rail- 
road rates  on  grain  intended  for  the  Chicago  market. 
The  canal  has  not  only  been  able  to  meet  the 
local  rates  of  the  railroads,  but  where  they  are 
competitors,  it  has  forced  the  railroad  rates  much 

*The  all-rail  rate  from  Chicago  to  New  York  during 
recent  years  has  varied  from  16.46  cents  to  21.83  a 
hundred  pounds,  falling  below  17  cents  only  in  1900, 
1901,  and  1905.  In  August,  1906,  the  rate  was  17.50 
cents  and  that  from  Peoria  to  New  York  was  19  cents. 

'This  advantage  has  been  lost  under  the  re-arrange- 
ment of  rates  in  northern  Illinois  since  the  passage  of 
the  Hepburn  act. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  121 

below  those  at  non-competitive  points  for  similar 
hauls.  In  1874  tne  average  length  of  haul  for 
grain  on  the  canal  was  72.5  miles  and  the  average 
rate,  3.47  cents  per  bushel.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Illinois  railroad  commissioners'  rate  for  a  haul 
of  equal  length  was  7.48  cents  per  bushel.1  The 
Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railroad,  how- 
ever, found  it  impossible  to  maintain  the  maximum 
rate  allowed  by  the  commissioners  because  of  the 
canal  competition.  In  1876,  the  canal  rate  on 
corn  from  La  Salle  to  Chicago,  99  miles,  was  3.25 
cents  per  bushel.  The  railroad  rate  was  4.50  cents. 
From  Henry  to  Chicago,  128  miles,  the  rate  by 
river  and  canal  was  4  cents  per  bushel  while  the 
railroad  charged  4.50  cents  as  against  6.83  cents 
from  Tiskilwa  to  Chicago,  a  distance  of  123  miles.8 
The  grain  from  both  Henry  and  Tiskilwa  was  car- 
ried by  the  same  railroad  and,  with  the  exception 
of  the  nine  miles  from  Tiskilwa  to  Bureau  Junction 
it  was  carried  over  the  same  tracks  and  frequently 
on  the  same  trains.  From  Peoria  to  Chicago, 
160  miles,  the  railroad  rates  were  4.50  cents  a 
bushel  during  the  winter  season  and  3  cents  in 
summer,  when  the  canal  was  in  operation.3 

The  freight  rates  on  lumber  showed  a  similar 
influence  of  the  waterway.  From  Chicago  to 

1  Special  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1875,  p.  n. 

a Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1876,  p.  8. 

'For  many  years  the  railroad  made  a  practice  of 
charging  a  higher  rate  in  winter  than  in  summer  at  all 
points  where  it  had  to  compete  with  the  waterway  for 
traffic. 


122      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

Peoria,  the  canal  and  river  rate  was  $2.25  per 
thousand  feet.  The  railroad  charged  $2.985. 
For  a  haul  of  substantially  the  same  length  from 
Chicago  to  Geneseo,  159  miles,  the  railroad  rate 
was  four  dollars.1  An  examination  of  the  sched- 
ules of  local  grain  rates  from  various  shipping 
points  in  northern  Illinois  to  Chicago  in  1901 
shows  still  further  the  influence  of  the  canal  on 
freight  rates  on  competing  railroads.  The  rates  on 
the  Chicago,  Rock  Island,  and  Pacific  Railroad  had 
been  determined  by  long  competition  with  the  canal 
and  by  the  possibility  that  much  of  its  traffic  might 
again  revert  to  the  canal  in  case  the  railroad  rates 
should  be  raised.  The  rates  on  roads  having  no 
water  competition  were  distinctly  higher,  as  shown 
by  the  following  tabulation  of  distances  and  charges : 


Town 

Transportation        Distance  from 

Rates  per 

Route 

Chicago, 

100  Ibs. 

Miles 

Cents 

La  Salle 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R 

.    99 

5-5 

Dixon 

C.&N.W.R.R. 

100 

8 

Ottawa 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R. 

85 

5 

Mendota 

C.B.&Q.R.R. 

83 

6-5 

Marseilles 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R. 

77 

4-75 

Emington 

Wabash  R.  R. 

77 

6 

Earlville 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R. 

72 

6.5 

Morris 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R. 

62 

4 

Chebanse 

111.  Central  R.  R. 

62.8 

6 

Joliet2, 

C.  R.  I.  &  P.  R.  R. 

40 

3 

Manhattan 

Wabash  R.  R 

40 

4 

Aurora 

C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R. 

37 

5-6 

1  Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners,  1876,  p.  8 
2The  Chicago  and  Alton  and  the  Atchison,  Topeka, 

and    Santa    Fe   railroads   also   compete   for   Chicago 

traffic  at  Joliet. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  123 

These  lower  rates  from  the  canal  towns  were 
necessary  in  order  to  prevent  the  Chicago  ship- 
ments from  going  chiefly  by  way  of  the  canal.1 
Until  recently  it  was  possible  to  load  the  canal 
boats  and  barges  to  the  depth  of  four  feet  and 
eight  inches.  With  a  fleet  load  of  from  16,000 
to  17,000  bushels,  the  grain  rate  from  Marseilles 
to  Chicago  was  two  cents  a  bushel.2  The  Ottawa 
rates  were  two  and  a  fourth  cents  and  those  at 
Utica  two  and  three-eights  cents.  Since  1902, 
shallow  water  in  the  canal  has  precluded  the 
loading  of  boats  to  their  full  capacity.  The  rate 
has  therefore  increased  on  the  average  about  a  half 
cent  a  bushel,  the  Marseilles  rate  being  two  and 
a  half  cents.3 

After  the  passage  of  the  Hepburn  act,  there  was 
a  general  readjustment  of  railroad  rates  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  canal.  In  this  readjustment  the 

:That  the  Rock  Island  rates  were  determined  by  the 
competition  of  the  waterway  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  the  non-competitive  winter  rate  was  higher  than 
the  competitive  summer  rates  and  by  the  further  fact 
that  its  charges  from  all  points  beyond  a  reasonable 
teaming  distance  from  the  waterway,  the  Rock  Island 
rates  were  similar  to  those  of  other  railroads. 

2 When  the  boats  could  be  loaded  to  a  depth  of  four 
feet  and  eight  inches,  the  usual  steamer  load  was  from 
4,000  to  4,200  bushels  and  each  barge  load  from  6,000 
to  6,200  bushels.  A  steamer  and  two  barges  make 
up  a  fleet. 

3This  charge  includes  the  entire  expense  to  the  ship- 
per for  the  delivery  of  the  grain  to  the  elevator  in 
Chicago. 


i24      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

local  grain  rates  came  to  be  based  roughly  on  the 
principle  of  distance  tariffs  arranged  on  a  series  of 
concentric  circles  with  Chicago  as  the  center. 
This  arrangement  resulted  in  a  decided  rise  in  rail- 
road rates  in  the  canal  towns.  The  rates  at  Mar- 
seilles increased  from  four  and  three-quarters  cents 
per  hundred  pounds  to  five  and  one-half  cents.  At 
Morris  they  advanced  from  four  to  five  cents.  At 
Ottawa  from  five  to  five  and  a  half  cents.  At  La 
Salle  from  five  and  a  half  to  six  cents. 

The  present  schedule  gives  the  canal  an  ad- 
vantage of  from  a  cent  to  a  cent  and  a  half  on  each 
hundred  pounds.  However,  it  is  not  probable 
that  this  difference  in  rates  will  turn  the  major  part 
of  the  grain  traffic  back  to  the  canal.  Other 
advantages  of  the  railroad  tend  to  offset  this 
difference  in  rates,  especially  for  through  traffic. 

During  the  period  of  its  operation,  the  canal 
has  carried  74,031,104  tons  of  freight.1  It  has 
received  $6,631,007  in  tolls  and  expended  $5,391,- 
107  for  maintenance,  repairs  and  operation.  In 
these  years  it  has  also  received  large  sums  from 
rentals,  leases,  and  privileges.2  It  has  not  proven 
to  be  the  great  source  of  revenue  for  the  state 
treasury  that  had  been  anticipated  in  the  days  of 

xThese  statistics  include  all  the  period  of  operation 
up  to  December  I,  1915,  except  those  regarding  the 
tonnage.  No  tonnage  statistics  are  available  before  1860. 

2The  canal  office  is  unable  to  furnish  statistics  for 
these  items  complete.  On  pages  85  and  86  will  be 
found  a  tabulation  of  these  earnings  for  the  eighteen 
years  from  1898  to  1915  inclusive. 


ECONOMIC  INFLUENCE  125 

its  projection  and  construction.  But  the  great 
services  of  the  canal  have  been  in  the  economic 
development  of  the  middle  West,  particularly  of 
the  northern  part  of  Illinois,  and  in  its  influence 
on  railroad  rates.  For  the  performance  of  these 
services  the  canal  has  been  worth  all  it  has  cost  the 
state. 


Chapter  V 
IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT 

When  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  was  pro- 
jected, it  was  intended  to  form  the  connecting 
link  in  a  great  system  of  waterways  which  would 
carry  the  commerce  of  the  interior  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  therefore  projected  and  con- 
structed on  a  plan  supposed  to  be  adequate  for 
that  purpose.  Before  it  was  completed,  however, 
experience  had  shown  that  the  Illinois  River 
channel  was  inadequate  to  furnish  an  effective 
commercial  route  to  the  Mississippi,  in  low  stages 
of  water1.  Accordingly,  in  1845,  at  the  request  of 
Governor  Ford  and  under  the  patronage  of  George 
Bancroft,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  George  R.  Mowry 
examined  the  river  with  a  view  to  the  improve- 
ment of  navigation  from  La  Salle  to  the  mouth  of 
the  stream.  This  examination  disclosed  the  fact 
that  on  seventy-one  shoals  and  bars,  the  depth  of 
water  did  not  exceed  thirty-two  inches  and  on 
nineteen  or  twenty  of  these  it  was  not  more  than 

JIn  a  letter  to  Capt.  W.  H.  Swift,  dated  November 
21,  1845,  Mowry  writes:  "With  the  exception  of  a  few 
long  stretches  of  deep  water,  the  river  is  filled  with 
shoals  from  Peoria  to  within  twenty  miles  of  the 
mouth.  Some  of  these  shoals  are  long  and  all  of  them 
have  but  from  26  to  32  inches  of  water  upon  them." 
126 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       127 

twenty  inches  at  its  lowest  stages.1  Such  a  chan- 
nel was  clearly  inadequate  for  steamboat  naviga- 
tion, to  say  nothing  of  floating  the  canal  boats 
which  it  was  expected  to  carry  within  the  next 
three  years.  Mowry  therefore  recommended  the 
construction  of  six  locks  and  dams,  which  he  esti- 
mated would  give  a  minimum  depth  of  three  feet 
of  water  at  the  lowest  known  stage  of  the  river.2 
The  importance  of  the  improvement  was  fully 
appreciated,  but  as  it  was  estimated  to  cost  $492,- 
292.70,  the  state  of  Illinois  was  in  no  financial 
condition  to  undertake  its  accomplishment  at  that 
time. 
The  hindrances  to  navigation  in  the  Illinois 

^Illinois  House  Reports,  1846-7,  p.  39.  Cf.  Report 
of  the  Canal  Trustees,  1846,  pp.  15-26.  Mr.  Bancroft 
set  apart  $15,000  of  the  funds  at  his  disposal  to  pay 
the  expenses  of  the  survey. 

2The  recommended  locks  and  dams  and  their  esti- 
mated cost  were  as  follows: 

Location  Length  of  Height  of  Lift  of  Cost 

Dam,         Dam,      Lock, 
ft.  ft.  ft. 

Henry 700          9        7  $63,151.26 

Copperas  Creek 800         10        7  81,820.76 

Foot  of  Grand  Island..     800         10         4  76,561.42 

La  Grange 600         n         6  62,455.30 

Florence 1200         1 1         7  78,902.56 

Apple  Creek 1400          9        6  81,099.30 

Excavation  of  channel  between  mouth  of 

Apple  Creek  and  mouth  of  Illinois  River  3)365.40 

£447,357-00 
Add  10%  for  contingencies 44,735-7° 

Total $492,292.70 


128      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

River,  however,  were  no  more  serious  than  those 
in  other  western  streams.  Of  the  three  hundred 
and  thirty-eight  vessels  registered  with  the  United 
States  Surveyor  and  Inspector  at  St.  Louis,  from 
1838  to  1841,  fifty-three  were  lost  through  acci- 
dents. It  was  estimated  that  fully  nine-tenths  of 
these  losses  were  occasioned  by  obstructions  to 
navigation  which  were  readily  removable.1  Ac- 
cordingly, with  the  hope  of  securing  the  improve- 
ment of  the  Mississippi  and  its  most  important 
tributaries,  by  the  federal  government,  a  river 
improvement  convention  was  held  at  Memphis, 
Tennessee,  November  12-15,  ^S,2  attended  by 
representatives  from  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Ala- 
bama, Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Texas,  and  the  Territory  of  Iowa.3  As  a  part  of  a 
general  scheme  for  the  development  of  the  interior 
of  the  country,  the  convention  recommended  the 
improvement  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  chief 
tributaries  and  the  connection  of  the  Great  Lakes 
and  the  Mississippi  by  means  of  a  ship  canal.4 
At  the  following  session  of  Congress,  the  House 
was  flooded  with  bills  for  all  sorts  of  internal  im- 

1  Report  of  St.  Louis  Chamber  of  Trade  and  Com- 
merce, 1842,  p.  25. 

2The  Southwestern  Convention,  usually  called  the 
Memphis  Convention. 

8  Proceedings  of  the  Southwestern  (Memphis)  Con- 
vention of  1845,  pp.  3-5. 

4 Proceedings  of  the  Memphis  Convention,  1845,  pp. 
25-26. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       129 

provements.1  As  a  result,  the  River  and  Harbor 
bill  became  much  more  elaborate  and  extensive 
than  its  predecessors  had  been.  As  finally  passed 
by  the  House,  after  many  eliminations,  it  carried 
appropriations  for  forty-nine  specific  objects  and 
aggregating  $1,378,450;  but  it  contained  none  for 
the  improvement  of  the  Illinois  River  nor  for  the 
proposed  ship  canal,  although  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
John  Wentworth,  Robert  Smith,  and  Edward  D. 
Baker,  had  strenuously  endeavored  to  secure  such 
recognition  for  the  waterway.2  The  bill  passed 
the  senate  without  amendment,3  but  was  vetoed 
by  President  Polk  on  the  ground  that  the  federal 
government  had  no  constitutional  authority  to 
appropriate  funds  for  the  construction  of  works  of 
internal  improvement  within  a  state,  as  most  of 
the  proposed  improvements  were.4 

1  Congressional    Globe,    29th    Congress,    1st    session, 

PP-  530-53I- 

*  Among  the  items  in  the  bill  was  one  of  $12,000  for 
harbor  improvement  at  Chicago  and  another  of  $75,000 
for  improving  the  harbor  at  St.  Louis.  The  bill  also 
carried  an  appropriation  of  $240,000  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  Missouri, 
and  Arkansas  Rivers  and  the  Ohio  below  the  falls  at 
Louisville. 

'The  bill  passed  the  House,  March  20,  and  the 
Senate,  July  24,  1846,  and  was  vetoed  August  3,  1846. 

4  Congressional  Globe,  29th  Congress,  1st  session, 
pp.  1181-1183,  also>  Messages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents,  IV,  pp.  460-466.  The  River  and  Harbor 
Bill  which  passed  the  House,  February  2Oth,  and  the 
Senate,  March  3,  1847,  carrying  appropriations  ag- 


i3o      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

Deeply  chagrined  at  the  miscarriage  of  their 
plans,  the  friends  of  river  improvement  in  the 
West  called  a  Harbor  and  River  Convention  which 
met  in  Chicago,  July  5,  I847.1  The  Convention 
was  avowedly  non-partisan  and  numbered  among 
its  members  many  men  of  prominence  in  the 
political  and  industrial  world.  Edward  Bates  of 
Missouri  presided.  Letters  endorsing  the  object 
of  the  convention  were  received  from  such  men  as 
Thomas  H.  Benton,  Silas  Wright,  Henry  Clay, 
Martin  Van  Buren,  Lewis  Cass,  and  Daniel  Web- 
ster, as  well  as  from  many  less  well  known  men  of 
affairs.2  Resolutions  were  passed  declaring  it  the 
sense  of  the  convention  that  Congress  possessed 
the  constitutional  power  to  regulate  both  foreign 
commerce  and  commerce  among  the  states,  and 
memorializing  that  body  to  facilitate  both  by  the 

gregating  $564,000,  was  also  vetoed,  but  being  in 
the  hands  of  the  President  at  the  close  of  the  session, 
the  veto  message  was  not  received  by  the  House  till 
December  15,  1847.  The  bill  contained  no  provision, 
however,  for  the  improvement  of  the  Illinois  River. 

JThe  states  represented  by  delegates  in  the  con- 
vention were:  Connecticut,  Florida,  Georgia,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Iowa,  Kentucky,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Mich- 
igan, Missouri,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New 
York,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  South 
Carolina  and  Wisconsin. 

2  Most  of  these  letters  unreservedly  committed  the 
writers  to  the  support  of  the  movement  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  waterways  of  the  middle  west,  but  in  a  few 
cases,  as  those  of  Cass  and  Wright,  the  writers  were  more 
reserved  in  the  form  of  their  statements.  Proceedings  of 
the  Chicago  Harbor  and  River  Convention,  1847,  pp.  28-37. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       131 

improvement  of  the  rivers  and  harbors  of  the 
interior.1  The  opposition  of  many  of  the  Demo- 
cratic leaders,  however,  together  with  the  sectional 
jealousies  which  developed  in  the  effort  to  appor- 
tion the  appropriations  among  the  various  inter- 
ests involved,  and  the  straightened  condition  of 
the  finances  due  to  the  Mexican  War,  resulted  in 
the  failure  of  the  federal  government  to  take  any 
steps  toward  the  improvement  of  the  Illinois  River 
till  1852,  when  the  sum  of  $30,000  was  appropri- 
ated for  that  purpose.2  The  expenditure  of  this 
sum  on  a  channel  more  than  two  hundred  miles  in 
length  could  do  little  more  than  furnish  a  tempo- 
rary relief  from  the  worst  bars  and  shoals. 

The  unusual  drought  in  Illinois  in  1856  so  seri- 
ously interfered  with  river  traffic  that  a  corpora- 
tion known  as  the  Illinois  River  Improvement 
Company  was  formed  for  the  purpose  of  main- 
taining a  navigable  channel,  by  the  use  of  docks 
and  wing-dams.3  In  1858  J.  B.  Preston  made 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Chicago  Harbor  and  River  Con- 
vention, 1847,  pp.  39-42. 

2The  River  and  Harbor  Bill  of  1851  had  contained 
an  appropriation  of  $50,000  for  the  improvement  of 
the  Illinois  River,  but  it  failed  to  pass  the  Senate. 

3This  company  was  incorporated  February  14,  1857. 
There  were  forty-five  incorporators,  among  them  men 
of  far  more  than  local  prominence,  such  as  W.  B. 
Ogden,  Col.  W.  F.  Thornton,  Gen.  J.  M.  Ruggles, 
and  others.  The  capital  stock  of  the  corporation 
was  $3,000,000  divided  into  shares  of  $500  each. 
The  affairs  of  the  corporation  were  to  be  controlled 
by  thirteen  directors  chosen  annually,  who  were 


i32      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

surveys  and  estimates  for  such  enlargement  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  and  such  improve- 
ment in  the  Illinois  River  channel  as  would  insure 
a  waterway  that  would  carry  the  Mississippi  River 
steamboats  to  Chicago  at  the  lowest  stages  of  water. 
The  corporation,  however,  was  unable  to  raise  the 
funds  to  carry  on  the  work  and  in  the  midst  of  the 
excitement  aroused  by  the  slavery  agitation,  Con- 
gress failed  to  give  any  attention  to  the  project.1 

required  to  make  detailed  reports  of  the  business  of 
the  corporation  to  the  Secretary  of  State  not  later 
than  January  I5th  of  the  year  succeeding  the  one  for 
which  the  report  was  made.  The  work  of  channel 
improvement  was  required  to  be  begun  within  •  two 
years  from  the  date  of  incorporation  of  the  company 
and  be  completed  within  seven  years.  The  corporation 
was  empowered  to  charge  fees  and  tolls  and  to  lease  or 
sell  water-power,  but  it  could  not  engage  in  commerce. 
lThe  need  of  the  improvement  in  order  to  complete 
an  efficient  transportation  route  is  shown  by  the  words 
of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal  in  his  annual  report,  December  I,  1860.  He 
says:  "The  water  in  the  Illinois  River  has  been 
unusually  low  since  April.  Boats  have  made  but  two 
round  trips  from  Chicago  to  St.  Louis  during  the 
season;  the  low  water  has  interfered  very  seriously 
with  the  lumber  business  and  the  grain  trade  from  the 
River."  He  gives  the  depths  of  water  on  the  "Tree- 
top  Bar,"  a  short  distance  below  La  Salle  as  follows: 
Mar.  31,  6  ft.  5  in.  April  28,  3  ft.  5  in. 

May     2,  2  "  7  "  June  24,  I    "   n   " 

July   26,  2  "  3   "  Aug.  28,  2  "     o  " 

Sept.  26,  i   "  8  "  Oct.      3,  i   "     8  " 

Nov.  25,  2  "  5   " 
The  lowest  water  in  the  canal  was  4  ft.  6  in. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       135 

The  closing  of  the  lower  Mississippi  to  northern 
vessels  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  and 
the  threatened  complications  with  Great  Britain, 
growing  out  of  the  Trent  affair,  caused  a  renewed 
interest  in  the  development  of  a  larger  and  deeper 
waterway  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Great  Lakes. 
On  February  20, 1862,  Francis  P.  Blair  introduced 
into  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  bill  providing 
for  the  development  of  such  a  waterway  by  the 
federal  government,  through  the  enlargement  of  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  and  the  improvement 
of  the  Illinois  River  channel.1  Bitterly  attacked  by 
such  men  as  Thaddeus  Stevens,  Daniel  W.Voorhees, 
William  S.  Holman,  and  Clement  L.  Vallanding- 
ham,  the  bill  was  first  postponed  till  the  following 
December  and  finally  defeated,  on  February  9, 1 863 .2 

xlt  was  estimated  that  a  channel  160  feet  wide  with 
locks  350  feet  long  and  75  feet  wide,  and  with  sufficient 
depth  to  accommodate  vessels  drawing  six  feet  of  water, 
could  be  developed  at  a  cost  of  $13,346,824.  The  bill 
carried  an  appropriation  of  this  amount.  The  engineer, 
John  Ericsson,  estimated  that  by  the  use  of  buoys, 
iron-clad  gun-boats  200  feet  long  and  25  feet  wide 
could  be  taken,  stripped,  through  such  a  channel. 
He  regarded  these  vessels  as  ample  for  the  protection 
of  the  Great  Lakes. 

2The  bill  as  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs,  is  given  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  37th  Con- 
gress, 2nd  session,  p.  271 1.  As  amended  by  the  House  to 
include  the  enlargement  of  the  locks  in  the  New  York 
canals,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  37th 
Congress,  3rd  session,  p.  700.  At  p.  830  is  also  to  be 
found  the  bill  which  was  accepted  as  a  substitute  and 
then  finally  defeated  in  the  House,  February  9,  1863. 


i34      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

On  March  2,  a  call  was  issued  from  Washington 
for  a  National  Ship-canal  Convention,  to  be  held  in 
Chicago  the  following  June.  The  call  was  signed 
by  Edward  Bates,  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States,  by  eighty  members  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  by  fourteen  Senators.  The  con- 
vention met  June  2,  1863,  with  Vice-P resident 
Schuyler  Colfax  as  chairman.  In  a  series  of 
resolutions  and  a  memorial  to  Congress,  the  con- 
vention urged  the  great  military  and  commercial 
importance  of  the  work  and  the  desirability  of 
national  ownership  and  control  of  the  waterway.1 
The  course  of  events,  however,  tended  to  lessen 
the  weight  of  the  arguments  for  the  immediate 
construction  of  such  a  waterway.  The  fall  of 
Vicksburg,  July  4,  1863,  opened  the  Mississippi 
to  navigation  throughout  its  full  length.  In  the 
meantime  the  immediate  danger  of  war  with 
Great  Britain  had  practically  disappeared.  There- 
fore, when  Isaac  N.  Arnold,  on  January  n,  1864, 
introduced  a  bill  in  accordance  with  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Chicago  Ship-canal  Convention, 

1  Proceedings  of  the  National  Ship-canal  Convention, 
1863,  pp.  40-41,  and  227-246.  Based  on  a  survey  and 
estimates  completed  by  William  Gooding  and  J.  B. 
Preston  shortly  before  it  met,  the  convention  recom- 
mended the  enlargement  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
Canal  from  Chicago  to  Joliet  to  a  width  of  one  hundred 
and  sixty  feet  and  a  depth  of  seven  feet,  with  locks 
three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  and  seventy-five  feet 
wide.  From  Joliet  to  La  Salle,  it  was  planned  to 
improve  the  river  channel  except  around  the  Mar- 
seilles rapids,  where  a  short  canal  would  be  required. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       135 

the  old  antagonists  were  able  to  prevent  favorable 
action  on  it  during  the  session. 

Problems  incident  to  the  closing  years  of  the 
Civil  War  so  engrossed  the  attention  of  Congress 
that  the  ship-canal  project  received  no  further 
consideration  till  1866,  when  the  act  of  June  23, 
directed  the  Secretary  of  War  to  cause  a  new  sur- 
vey of  the  Illinois  River  to  be  made.1  This  survey 
was  made  by  General  James  H.  Wilson,  who 
recommended  the  enlargement  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  to  a  width  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty  feet  and  a  minimum  depth  of  seven  feet  from 
Chicago  to  Lockport.  The  plan  provided  for  a 
channel  of  like  capacity  from  Lockport  to  the 
Mississippi,  by  the  construction  of  locks  and  dams 
in  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois  rivers.2  With 
locks  three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  and  seventy- 
five  feet  wide,  it  was  estimated  that  such  a  water- 
way would  meet  the  requirements  of  both  a  com- 
mercial and  naval  route.  It  would  carry  the 
largest  vessels  that  were  capable  of  being  operated 
on  the  Mississippi  River  above  the  mouth  of  the 
Ohio.3  Even  larger  war  vessels  than  were  usable 

1  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  XIV,  p.  74. 

2  House  Executive  Document,  No.  16,  4Oth  Congress, 
ist  Session,  pp.  7-8. 

'General  Wilson  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  provide  a 
channel  of  sufficient  depth  to  float  the  lake  steamers,  be- 
cause he  thought  them  too  unwieldy  for  use  on  the  rivers. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  regarded  the  river  steamboats 
unsuited  to  use  on  the  lakes.  Since  he  considered  a 
transfer  of  freight  at  Chicago  inevitable,  he  could  see  no 
necessity  for  providing  for  a  greater  depth  of  channel. 


136      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

on  the  Mississippi,  could  be  taken  from  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico  to  Lake  Michigan  by  the  use  of  "  camels" 
or  barges  to  lift  them  partially  out  of  the  water.1 
Concerning  these  improvements,  estimated  to  cost 
#2i,373,9o6,2  General  Wilson  said:  "I  desire  to 
state  that  I  recommend  improvements  of  such 
magnitude  after  the  fullest  consideration  of  the 
subject,  believing  that  nothing  else  will  answer 
the  present  and  future  demands  of  the  national 
defense,  and  sufficiently  provide  for  the  immense 
internal  commerce  of  the  country." 3  A  re- 
examination  of  the  route  in  1868  by  General 
Wilson  and  William  Gooding  only  confirmed  the 
recommendation,  but  Congress  took  no  steps 
toward  accomplishing  the  proposed  task. 

While  the  federal  government  procrastinated, 
the  state  of  Illinois  was  led  to  act.  Many  times 
since  1848  had  the  canal  trustees  uged  the  neces- 
sity of  providing  a  channel  adequate  to  carry  canal 
boats  to  St.  Louis,  in  order  to  give  the  canal  its 
greatest  usefulness.  But  not  until  1867  did  the 
General  Assembly  take  any  steps  toward  accom- 

1  House  Executive  Document,  No.  16,  4Oth  Congress, 
1st  Session,  p.  7.  In  the  Chicago  Ship-canal  Conven- 
tion, Admiral  Porter  was  reported  as  authority  for  the 
statement  that  the  United  States  then  had  about 
sixty  vessels  capable  of  passing  through  the  proposed 
waterway. 

2A  more  careful  estimate  made  the  following  year  by 
General  Wilson  and  William  Gooding  reduced  the  esti- 
mated cost  of  the  improvement  to  $18,217,242.56. 

3  House  Executive  Document,  No.  16,  4Oth  Congress, 
1st  Session,  p.  9. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       137 

plishing  that  end,  further  than  to  occasionally 
memorialize  Congress  in  behalf  of  the  much 
needed  improvement.  By  the  act  of  February 
28,  1867,  however,  the  state  inaugurated  the  work 
of  improving  the  Illinois  River  channel.  By  means 
of  a  lock  and  dam  at  Henry  and  another  at  Copperas 
Creek  and  at  a  cost  to  the  state  of  $747,747.51,  a 
section  of  waterway,  ninety-eight  miles  in  length, 
was  insured  a  channel  with  a  minimum  depth  of 
seven  feet,  and  capable  of  accommodating  the 
largest  Mississippi  steamboats  that  could  reach  St. 
Louis  during  seasons  of  low  water.1  This  section 
of  the  waterway  was  placed  under  the  control  of 
the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  commissioners  and 
the  schedule  of  tolls  and  lockage  charges  for  the 
canal  was  applied  to  this  portion  of  the  river. 

With  the  completion  of  the  Copperas  Creek 
lock  and  dam,  in  1877  the  state  improvement  of 
the  river  channel  ceased.  There  were  no  longer 

*On  the  lock  and  dam  at  Henry  the  state  expended 
#400,000.  On  that  at  Cooperas  Creek,  the  federal 
government  expended  #62,359.80  in  the  construction 
of  the  lock  foundations  and  the  state  paid  $347,747.51 
to  complete  the  work.  The  lock  at  Henry  was  complet- 
ed in  January,  1872,  and  that  at  Copperas  Creek  was 
begun  September  I,  1873  and  completed  in  October, 
1877,  and  was  formally  turned  over  to  the  canal  com- 
missioners on  November  8th.  In  order  to  facilitate 
the  passage  of  large  steamers,  and  in  accordance  with 
the  recommendations  of  Preston  in  1858  and  Preston 
and  Gooding  in  1863  and  Gen.  Wilson  in  1867,  the 
locks  were  made  350  feet  long  inside  the  gates  and 
75  feet  wide  between  the  walls. 


i38      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

net  revenues  from  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
which  could  be  used  for  this  purpose,  and  the 
General  Assembly  was  unwilling  to  assume  the 
responsibility  of  voting  an  extra  tax  to  provide  the 
necessary  funds  with  which  to  carry  on  the  work. 
The  plan  of  improvement  called  for  three  more 
locks  and  dams.  Apparently,  there  was  no  pros- 
pect of  the  completion  of  the  work  unless  done 
by  the  federal  government. 

Having  resurveyed  the  lower  river,  Major  J.  G. 
Lydecker,  in  1880,  recommended  the  completion 
of  the  work  of  improvement  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment, but  on  an  altered  plan.  Instead  of  the 
three  proposed  locks  and  dams,  he  recommended 
two,  together  with  sufficient  dredging  to  insure 
the  required  seven-foot  channel.  The  proposal 
was  adopted  and  the  River  and  Harbor  act  of 
June  14,  1880  appropriated  $110,000  with  which 
to  begin  the  work.1  Nine  years  later,  October  21, 
1889,  the  La  Grange  lock  was  opened  for  use,  but 
it  was  not  till  August  30,  1893,  that  a  steamboat 
passed  through  the  lock  at  Kampsville.  Com- 
pleted at  a  cost  of  $1,145,886,  these  two  locks 
carried  to  the  Mississippi  the  channel  improve- 
ment which  the  state  of  Illinois  had  inaugurated 
twenty-six  years  before.2 

lOi  this  sum  $100,000  was  to  be  expended  on  the 
locks  and  $10,000  in  dredging.  From  former  appropri- 
ations there  was  already  available  for  dredging  the 
sum  of  $38,699.45. 

2Up  to  June  30,  1907,  the  federal  government  had 
expended  on  these  works  and  in  dredging,  $1,515,720.77. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       139 

Before  the  completion  of  the  Illinois  River  im- 
provements, the  federal  government  took  up  the 
project  of  opening  a  commercial  waterway  from 
the  upper  Mississippi  to  Chicago.1  The  project 
included  the  construction  of  a  canal  between  the 
Mississippi  and  Illinois  Rivers  and  the  enlargement 
of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal.  In  the  hope 
that  the  federal  government  would  complete  the 
entire  system  of  waterways  from  Lake  Michigan 
to  both  the  upper  and  the  lower  Mississippi,  the 
state  of  Illinois,  by  act  of  April  28,  1882,  con- 
ditionally ceded  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
and  all  its  property,  rights  and  privileges  to  the 
United  States.2  Although  in  1883  an  estimate 
was  made  of  the  comparative  cost  and  relative 
advantage  of  the  enlargement  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  throughout  its  entire  length  and 
the  alternative  plan  of  enlarging  it  from  Chicago 
to  Joliet  and  adopting  a  system  of  channel  im- 
provement and  slack-water  navigation  in  the  Des 
Plaines  and  Illinois  Rivers  from  Joliet  to  La  Salle, 


Hennepin  Canal  route,  having  been  surveyed 
under  private  auspices  in  1866,  was  surveyed  by  the 
government  engineers  in  1870,  1874,  1884,  and  1885-6. 
The  surveys  for  the  enlargement  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal  were  largely  based  on  those  of  former 
years. 

2The  cession  was  conditioned  on  the  acceptance  of 
the  grant  by  the  United  States  within  five  years.  The 
grant  was  ratified  by  vote  of  the  people  of  the  state, 
November  5,  1882.  The  federal  government  failed  to 
accept  the  grant,  which  expired  by  limitation,  Novem- 
ber 5,  1887. 


i4o      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

no  steps  were  taken  by  the  government  toward 
making  either  improvement.1  In  1886,  Major 
Thomas  H.  Hanbury  advised  that  the  proposed 
enlargement  and  improvement  in  the  waterway 
should  take  the  form  of  channel  improvement  in 
the  Illinois  and  Des  Plaines  Rivers  to  Joliet  and 
an  enlargement  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
from  that  city  to  the  "Sag,"  through  which  a  new 
canal  should  be  constructed  to  the  Calumet  and 
thence  to  Lake  Michigan  at  the  Calumet  harbor, 
in  order  to  relieve  the  congested  condition  of  the 
Chicago  River  and  harbor. 

The  following  year,  the  Illinois  River  Improve- 
ment Convention  memorialized  Congress  in  behalf 
of  an  improvement  which  would  furnish  better 
water  transportation  facilities  between  the  Missis- 
sippi and  Chicago.2  Urged  by  the  commercial 
and  shipping  interests  of  the  upper  portion  of  the 
Mississippi  valley,  Congress  directed  a  survey 
and  estimates  for  such  a  channel  improvement  in 
the  Illinois  and  Des  Plaines  Rivers  from  La  Salle 
to  Lockport,  as  would  provide  a  navigable  water- 
way not  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  feet  wide 
and  fourteen  feet  deep.  From  Lockport  to  Chi- 

xThe  survey  was  made  by  George  Y.  Wisner,  under 
the  direction  of  Major  W.  H.  H.  Benyaurd.  It  was 
estimated  that  channel  improvements  giving  seven 
feet  of  water  from  La  Salle  to  Joliet  and  with  locks 
of  the  same  dimensions  as  those  on  the  lower  Illinois, 
would  cost  $3,433,582. 

2The  convention  was  held  at  Peoria,  Illinois,  October 
11-12,  1887. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       141 

cago,  a  channel  of  like  proportions  was  to  be 
created  by  the  enlargement  of  the  old  canal  or  the 
construction  of  a  new  one.  Regarding  a  channel 
of  eight  or  nine  feet  as  sufficient  to  accommodate 
any  vessel  that  could  reach  the  mouth  of  the 
Illinois  River,  Captain  W.  L.  Marshall,  in  charge 
of  surveys,  reported  adversely  on  the  proposed 
fourteen-foot  channel.  An  eight-foot  channel,  one 
hundred  and  sixty  feet  wide,  extending  from  the 
Calumet  harbor  to  Joliet  through  the  Calumet  and 
Sag  route  and  down  the  Des  Plaines  and  Illinois 
Rivers,  was  recommended  as  preferable  to  the 
proposed  improvement  and  as  entirely  adequate 
for  commercial  and  naval  purposes.1 

With  the  question  of  the  location  and  the  di- 
mensions of  the  eastern  portion  of  the  waterway 
still  unsettled,  the  federal  government  entered 
upon  the  task  of  constructing  the  long  projected 
Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal,  popularly  known  as 
the  Hennepin  Canal.2  Following  the  "  Rock  Island 
Route,"  fifty  miles  of  canal  and  twenty-seven 
miles  of  slack-water  in  the  Rock  River  form  the 
steamboat  route  from  the  upper  Mississippi  at 
Rock  Island  to  the  Illinois  near  Hennepin.3  A 

1  House  Executive  Documents,  5ist  Cong.,  2nd  Sess., 
Vol.  V,  pp.  2419-2452. 

2The  canal  is  eighty  feet  wide  at  the  water  surface, 
fifty-nine  feet  at  the  bottom,  and  carries  a  depth  of 
seven  feet  of  water.  The  locks  are  one  hundred  and 
seventy  feet  long,  thirty  feet  wide  and  have  a  minimum 
depth  of  seven  feet. 

3  From  the  point  where  the  Rock  River  feeder  enters 
the  canal  on  the  summit  level,  five  routes  were  surveyed 


i42      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

navigable  feeder  from  the  Rock  River  near  Dixon, 
connects  the  upper  course  of  that  river  with  the 
canal  on  the  summit  level  twenty-five  miles  from 
its  junction  with  the  Illinois  River.  So  slowly 
was  the  work  of  construction  carried  forward, 
however,  that  the  canal  was  not  opened  for  use 
throughout  its  entire  course  till  1907.*  Its  con- 
struction, at  a  cost  of  more  than  #7,200,000, 
provided  a  waterway  from  the  upper  Mississippi 
to  the  upper  Illinois,  capable  of  accommodating 
barges  carrying  six  hundred  tons  of  freight.2 

The  completion  of  the  Illinois  River  improve- 
ment and  the  progressing  construction  of  the 
Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal  emphasized  the  im- 
portance of  enlarging  and  improving  the  water- 
way from  La  Salle  to  Chicago.  Till  this  should  be 
accomplished  the  improvements  already  made  and 

to  the  Mississippi.  Two  of  these  reached  the  river 
at  Rock  Island,  two  at  Watertown,  and  one,  the 
Marais  d'Osier  route,  near  Albany.  The  route  chosen 
was  the  one  by  way  of  Penny's  Slough  and  Rock  River. 

xThe  work  of  construction  was  begun  in  July,  1892,  on 
the  canal,  four  and  a  half  miles  in  length,  around  the 
falls  in  the  lower  Rock  River,  near  Milan.  This  section 
of  the  waterway  was  opened  for  use  April  17,  1895. 

2  Up  to  July  i,  1907,  the  expenditures  on  the  canal 
had  reached  $7,188,696.87.  In  addition  to  this  sum, 
there  were  outstanding  liabilities  to  the  amount  of 
$15,000.  To  meet  these  liabilities  and  those  which 
would  be  incurred  in  completing  the  odds  and  ends 
of  the  work,  the  sum  of  $305,837.55  was  available 
from  the  previous  appropriations.  Report  of  the 
Chief  of  Engineers,  1907,  pp.  637-640. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       143 

those  in  progress  would  avail  but  little.  The 
locks  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  being  too 
narrow  to  permit  the  passage  of  the  steamers  and 
barges  which  were  able  to  reach  the  western  ter- 
minus of  the  canal,  a  transfer  of  freight  to  canal 
barges  or  to  freight  cars,  was  rendered  necessary 
within  a  hundred  miles  of  Chicago.1  Before  the 
water  route  could  again  become  effective  for  trans- 
portation purposes,  it  was  necessary  that  the 
Mississippi  River  vessels  should  be  able  to  dis- 
charge their  cargoes  at  the  wharves  and  elevators  in 
Chicago.  The  most  urgent  problem,  then,  was  that 
of  enlarging  the  waterway  from  La  Salle  to  Chicago. 
Meanwhile  the  sanitary  problem  at  Chicago  had 
become  a  pronounced  factor  in  the  movement  for 
a  more  commodious  waterway.  As  early  as  1865 
the  problem  of  sewage  disposal  led  the  city  to 
obtain  from  the  state  the  permission  to  lower  the 
summit  level  of  the  canal  sufficiently  to  insure 
such  a  flow  of  water  from  Lake  Michigan  as  would 
carry  the  sewage  from  the  Chicago  River  through 
the  canal  into  the  Des  Plaines.2  This  improve- 
ment, completed  in  1871  at  an  expenditure  of 
approximately  $3,ooo,ooo,3  met  the  sanitary  re- 


locks  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  being 
only  eighteen  feet  wide  between  the  chamber  walls, 
will  not  permit  the  passage  of  river  steamboats  and 
barges  which  are  built  wide  and  shallow. 

Authorized  by  the  act  of  February  16,  1865. 

'After  the  Chicago  fire  in  1871,  the  state  reimbursed 
the  city  for  this  expenditure  to  the  amount  of 
$2,955,340. 


144      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

quirements  for  nearly  a  decade.  By  1881,  how- 
ever, the  collection  of  debris  in  the  prism  of  the 
canal,  the  lowering  of  the  lake  level,  and  the  in- 
creasing amount  of  sewage  to  be  carried,  combined 
to  render  the  canal  ineffective  as  an  outlet.1  The 
putrid  condition  of  the  sewage  laden  water  passing 
sluggishly  through  the  canal  became  a  menace  to 
the  health  of  the  people  living  along  the  course  of 
the  canal  and  the  Des  Plaines  and  upper  Illinois 
Rivers.  To  obviate  this  danger,  the  General 
Assembly,  in  1881,  required  the  city  to  re-establish 
the  pumping  works  at  Bridgeport  in  order  to 
augment  the  flow  of  water  through  the  canal.2 
This  expedient,  however,  proved  unsatisfactory. 
Local  floods  frequently  polluted  the  water  supply 
of  the  city  by  carrying  the  accumulating  sewage 
from  the  river  into  the  lake.  As  the  most  feasible 
way  of  solving  the  sanitary  problem,  the  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago,  created  by  the  act  of  May  28, 
1889,  abandoned  the  old  canal  and  constructed  the 
Chicago  Drainage  Channel,  28.03  miles  in  length 

lln  the  decade,  1870  to  1880,  the  population  of  the 
city  grew  from  298,977  to  503,185.  During  the  same 
period  the  stock-yards  and  slaughtering  business  also 
made  rapid  strides.  The  number  of  cattle  received 
rose  from  532,964  in  1870  to  1,382,477  in  1880,  and 
the  number  packed  mounted  from  21,254  to  S11??11* 
while  the  receipts  of  hogs  increased  from  1,673,158, 
to  7,059,435  and  the  number  packed  increased  from 
919,197  to  5,752,191.  The  sewage  from  the  stock- 
yards and  packing  houses  was  emptied  into  the  South 
branch  of  the  Chicago  River. 

*Laws  of  Illinois,  1881,  pp.  159-161. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       145 

from  the  Chicago  River  to  the  Des  Plaines  at 
Lockport.1  Varying  in  surface  width  from  164 
feet  in  the  rock  sections  to  300  feet  in  the  earth 
portions,  and  carrying  a  depth  of  twenty-four 
feet  of  water  at  the  ordinary  lake  levels,  the 
Channel,  together  with  the  Chicago  River,  fur- 
nished an  excellent  beginning  for  the  proposed 
deep  water-way  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf. 

Since  the  construction  of  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Channel,  the  federal  government  has  continued  to 
make  surveys  and  estimates  of  the  cost  of  enlarging 
and  improving  the  waterway  from  the  terminus  of 
this  channel  to  the  Mississippi.  The  most  im- 
portant of  these  surveys  wa's  undertaken  in  com- 
pliance with  the  act  of  June  13,  I9O2.2  The  plan 
contemplates  a  channel  having  a  minimum  width 
of  two  hundred  feet  at  the  bottom  and  fourteen 
feet  deep.3  It  further  contemplates  the  removal  of 
the  four  dams  now  in  the  Illinois  River  and  a 
combination  of  channel  improvement  and  short 
canals  from  Lockport  to  Utica.  Although  bills 
carrying  appropriations  for  defraying  the  expenses 
of  the  proposed  improvement,  have  been  intro- 
duced at  almost  every  session  of  Congress  since 

1Work  was  begun  on  the  canal  September  3,  1892. 
On  January  2,  1900,  water  was  turned  into  the  canal 
from  Lake  Michigan,  and  fifteen  days  later  the  bear- 
trap  dam  at  Lockport  was  lowered  and  the  flow  from 
the  canal  to  the  Des  Plaines  began. 

2The  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  was  made 
December  12,  1905. 

3 House  Reports,  No.  263,  59th  Cong.,  ist.  Sess.,  pp. 4-5. 


i46      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

the  report  was  made,  no  provision  has  been  made 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  work  by  the  federal 
government.1 

The  state  of  Illinois,  however,  has  taken  up  the 
project  more  seriously.  Urged  by  the  commercial 
interests  which  would  be  affected  by  the  improve- 
ment, by  the  Chicago  Sanitary  District,  by  the 
Internal  Improvement  Commission  of  Illinois,  by 
annual  deep  waterway  conventions,  and  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Illinois  valley,  the  General 
Assembly,  by  a  joint  resolution  of  October  16, 
1907,2  submitted  to  a  referendum  vote,  a  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  state 
authorizing  the  issue  of  state  bonds  to  the  amount 
of  $20,000,000  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  funds 
with  which  to  complete  the  improvement  from 
the  western  terminus  of  the  Chicago  Drainage 
Canal  to  Utica,  and  to  construct  power  plants  for 
the  utilization  of  the  potential  power  created  by 
the  waterway.3  The  proposition  was  adopted 


joint  resolution  of  April  21,  1904,  authorized 
the  lowering  of  the  dams  at  La  Grange  and  Kamps- 
ville.  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large  Vol.  33  p.  589.  These 
were  lowered  with  the  permission  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  and  under  conditions  prescribed  by  him, 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  and 
at  the  expense  of  the  Sanitary  District. 

*Laws  of  Illinois,  Adjourned  session,  1907-1908,  pp. 
102-103.  A  survey  of  the  deep  waterway  was  author- 
ized by  the  act  of  June  3,  1902.  U.  S.  Statutes  at 
Large,  vol.  32,  pt.  I,  364. 

3The  original  plan  contemplated  a  channel  improve- 
ment in  the  Des  Plaines  River  from  the  present 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       147 

at  the  general  election  on  November  3,  1908,  by  a 
vote  of  692,522  to  195,177. 

The  possibilities  of  electrical  power  development 
along  the  line  of  the  proposed  improvement  was 
one  of  the  strong  factors  in  leading  the  state  to  so 
extensive  an  undertaking.  The  region  is  rich  in 
electrical  possibilities  and  the  market  for  the  power 
is  close  at  hand.  The  plan  for  the  waterway, 
therefore,  includes  the  construction  of  four  state- 
owned  power  plants  with  an  aggregate  capacity 
of  140,000  horse  power.1  It  is  estimated  that 

terminus  of  the  Drainage  Canal  above  the  city  of 
Joliet  to  the  junction  of  the  Des  Plaines  with  the 
Kankakee  in  forming  the  Illinois.  Because  of  the 
complications  growing  out  of  the  "Dresden  Heights 
dam"  lease,  two  alternative  plans  have  recently 
received  consideration.  The  first  is  to  enlarge  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  from  the  place  where  it 
crosses  the  Des  Plaines  River  to  a  point  below  Dresden 
Heights  and  there  enters  the  Illinois  River.  The  other 
is  to  extend  the  Drainage  Canal  through  the  eastern 
part  of  the  city  of  Joliet  and  follow  the  general  course 
of  the  Des  Plaines,  but,  keeping  to  the  east  and  south 
of  it,  to  enter  the  Kankakee  near  its  mouth,  following 
this  stream  to  the  Illinois.  The  report  of  the  Illinois 
Internal  Improvement  Commission,  however,  submitted 
on  March  I,  1909,  adheres  to  the  original  plan. 

LThe  four  proposed  plants  are  to  be  located  as 
follows : 

Brandon's  Road,  24-ft.  head 38,182  horse  power 

Big  Dresden  Island,  i8-ft.  head .  .      28,636  horse  power 

Bell's  Island,  26-ft.  head 41,364  horse  power 

Utica,  20-ft.  head 31,818  horse  power 

Total 140,000  horse  power 


i48      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

this  amount  of  electrical  power  would  carry  the 
interest  charge  on  the  cost  of  construction,  pay  the 
cost  of  operation  and  maintenance,  and  provide  a 
sinking  fund  with  which  to  finally  extinguish  the 
entire  debt.1  Thus  the  sanitary  necessities  of 
Chicago  and  the  seeming  possibility  of  defraying 
the  cost  of  the  extension  through  the  created  power 
apparently  carried  the  project  for  an  enlarged  and 
improved  waterway  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  appreciably  nearer  to  consum- 
mation. 

However,  the  authorization  of  the  bond  issue 
did  not  clear  the  way  for  immediate  accomplish- 
ment of  the  plan.  Legal  complications  delayed 
the  beginning  of  the  work.  Meanwhile,  a  change 
of  administration  placed  the  control  of  the  project 
in  the  hands  of  men  who  thought  a  less  ample  and 
less  expensive  channel  would  be  entirely  adequate 
both  for  the  needs  of  commerce  and  for  the  de- 
velopment of  water  power.  In  keeping  with  this 
view  the  Illinois  Waterway  Commission  was 
created  and  authorized  to  expend  $5,000,000  in 
making  the  improvement.2  The  new  plan  con- 
templates a  channel  depth  of  eight  feet,  instead  of 


results  of  the  operation  of  the  power  plant  of 
the  Drainage  District  would  seem  to  confirm  the 
estimates  of  the  advocates  of  a  deep  waterway  financed 
by  this  method.  On  a  production  of  a  little  more  than 
30,000  horsepower  the  District  derived  $804,934.92 
in  1912  and  $812,934.86  in  1913,  from  the  sale  of 
electrical  current. 
zLaws  of  Illinois,  1915,  pp.  18-35. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT       149 

the  fourteen  feet  contemplated  when  the  $20,000,- 
ooo  bond  issue  was  authorized.  In  fact,  this  plan 
is  substantially  a  revision  of  the  Marshall  plan  of 
1889  with  the  upper  sections  eliminated  as  unnec- 
essary since  the  construction  of  the  Chicago 
Drainage  Canal.  The  reasons  for  the  reversion  to 
the  shallower  channel  seem  to  be  that,  first,  the 
deeper  channel  down  to  Utica  would  be  of  little 
practical  value  unless  carried  on  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi,  or,  at  least,  to  St.  Louis.  There 
is  no  assurance  that  this  would  be  done  at  an  early 
date,  if  ever.  Secondly,  that  the  shallower  chan- 
nel would  secure  many  of  the  advantages  that 
could  be  secured  by  the  deeper  one  and  at  a  much 
less  cost.1  With  either  channel  the  Mississippi 
steamers  could  ply  between  New  Orleans  and 
Chicago,  connecting  both  cities  with  those  on  the 
Illinois,  the  Mississippi,  and  the  Ohio  and  usually 
with  those  on  the  Missouri,  as  far  up  as  Kansas 
City.  The  shallower  channel,  however,  would 
preclude  all  possibility  of  the  lake  vessels  and 
sea-going  vessels  using  the  waterway.2  With  the 

Development  of  the  waterway  on  the  new  plan 
has  been  stopped  at  least  temporarily,  by  a  court 
injunction.  The  restraining  order  was  issued  by 
Judge  Norman  S.  Jones  of  the  Sangamon  County 
Circuit  Court,  on  January  29,  1916,  on  a  complaint 
of  William  A.  Hubbard,  a  member  of  the  General 
Assembly.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  where  the  case  was  reversed  and  remanded  to 
the  Circuit  Court  with  instructions  to  dismiss. 

2  Mr.  Joy  Morton,  President  of  the  Morton  Salt 
Company,  is  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  shipments  of 


iSo     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

shallower  channel  practically  none  of  the  lake 
vessels  could  be  used  below  Joliet.  The  deeper 
channel  would  be  usable  by  probably  one-fourth, 
or  more,  of  the  vessels  entering  the  Chicago  har- 
bor.1 It  is  entirely  possible,  also,  that  if  the  water- 
way had  a  twelve  or  fourteen  foot  channel,  more 
lake  boats  would  be  built  of  a  capacity  to  use  it. 
It  is  not  probable  that  many  would  be  built  small 
enough  to  use  the  eight  foot  channel.  They  would 
not  be  practicable  for  lake  service. 

The  completion  of  the  waterway  to  Utica,  if  the 
larger  plan  be  followed,  would  open  to  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  smaller  lake  vessels  ninety-one  of  the 
three  hundred  and  twenty-one  miles  intervening 

salt,  it  would  be  cheaper  to  transfer  the  cargoes  at 
Chicago  than  to  send  the  more  expensive  boats  and 
larger  crews  on  a  slow  journey  through  the  canal,  even 
if  the  depth  of  channel  were  ample.  He  says:  "If 
we  had  a  canal  14  ft.  deep  or  even  20  feet  deep,  we 
could  not  afford  to  send  our  lake  boats  inland,  partly 
on  account  of  the  necessary  canal  speed  regulation, 
but  chiefly  because  of  their  much  greater  construction 
cost  per  ton  of  cargo  capacity  and  the  fact  that  they 
are  obliged  to  carry  a  larger  crew  than  a  canal  boat; 
and  for  the  further  reason  that  a  transfer  of  cargo 
at  the  Lake  harbor  can  be  accomplished  by  present 
unloading  facilities  so  cheaply  that  it  would  not  pay 
to  send  a  Lake  carrier  into  the  canal." 

'In  1901,  out  of  a  total  tonnage  of  4,244,498  tons, 
only  two-tenths  of  one  per  cent  had  a  draft  of  nine 
feet  or  less.  Fifteen  per  cent  had  a  draft  of  twelve 
feet  or  less  and  thirty-five  and  eight-tenths  had  a 
draft  of  fourteen  feet  or  less.  House  Document  No. 
263,  59th  Congress,  ist  Session,  p.  13. 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT      151 

between  the  Chicago  River  and  the  Mississippi. 
This  section  is  by  far  the  most  expensive  portion 
of  the  route.  If  this  portion  were  completed  at 
an  expenditure  of  more  than  $70,000,000  by  the 
Sanitary  District  and  the  State  of  Illinois,1  the 
advocates  of  the  deep  waterway  confidently  be- 
lieve that  the  federal  government  would  appro- 
priate the  $10,000,000  or  $11,000,000  necessary  to 
carry  the  fourteen  foot  channel  to  the  St.  Louis 
harbor.2  However,  should  the  other  plan  prevail 
and  consequently  the  lake  vessels  be  unable  to  use 
the  waterway,  Chicago  would  necessarily  become 
the  transfer  point  for  the  Mississippi  steamers  and 
the  lake  vessels.  In  either  case,  the  traffic  on  the 
waterways  would  be  greatly  increased.  There  is 
no  doubt  that  the  larger  and  deeper  channel  would 
carry  the  larger  commerce,  possibly  not  propor- 
tionately larger  as  compared  to  the  greater  initial 
outlay,  but  the  indirect  benefits  would  no  doubt 
at  least  partially  make  up  the  difference. 

The  steps  already  taken  have  given  a  renewed 
impetus  to  the  scheme  for  the  development  of  a 
great  system  of  interior  waterways.  The  progress- 

JThe  expenditures  of  the  Sanitary  District  on  the 
Drainage  Canal,  up  to  December  31,  1906,  amounted 
to  $52,698,024.98. 

2 The  board  of  engineers  which  made  the  survey 
under  a  provision  of  the  act  of  June  13,  1902,  estimated 
that  the  projected  fourteen  foot  waterway  from 
Lockport  to  the  mouth  of  the  Illinois  River  would  cost 
$23,543,582.  The  Mississippi  River  Commission  esti- 
mated the  cost  of  the  proposed  improvement  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Illinois  to  St.  Louis,  at  $6,553,880. 


i52      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

ing  enlargement  of  the  Erie  Canal,  giving  as  it 
will  improved  facilities  for  eastern  trade,  lends 
added  importance  to  such  a  system.  The  in- 
ability of  the  railroads  to  serve  adequately  the 
public  needs  for  transportation  facilities  during 
the  last  few  years  has  added  still  further  weight  to 
the  arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  such  a  work. 
Neither  are  the  possibilities  of  future  development 
of  trade  between  the  interior  and  the  Orient 
through  the  Panama  Canal  forgotten. 

The  completion  of  the  section  of  the  waterway 
which  Illinois  has  undertaken,  would  still  leave  to 
the  federal  government  the  improvement  of  the 
Illinois  River  channel  from  Utica  to  the  Missis- 
sippi and  considerable  improvement  in  the  latter 
stream,  in  order  to  provide  a  satisfactory  channel 
from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf.  It  is  to  the  con- 
struction of  this  section  of  the  work  that  the 
federal  government  is  now  being  urged. 

The  completion  of  the  proposed  improvement 
would  mean  the  abandonment  of  the  Illinois  and 
Michigan  Canal,  or  those  portions  of  it  not  in- 
corporated into  the  larger  waterway.  This  would, 
however,  be  in  keeping  with  the  purpose  which  led 
to  the  original  construction  of  the  canal  and  to 
the  persistent  efforts  for  such  improvement  of 
the  entire  waterway  as  would  enable  it  to  meet  the 
constantly  increasing  demands  made  upon  modern 
transportation  agencies.  It  would  be  only  another 
of  the  long  series  of  efforts  to  maintain  an  effective 
route  for  water  transportation  through  the  interior 
of  the  country  and  between  the  "inland  seas" 


IMPROVEMENT  AND  ENLARGEMENT   153 

and  the  ocean  commerce.  To  this  series  of  efforts, 
the  federal  government,  the  state  of  Illinois,  the 
municipality  of  Chicago,  and  the  Chicago  Sani- 
tary District  have  contributed  in  a  financial  way. 
The  interests  of  trade,  of  sanitation,  of  industrial 
development,  and,  perhaps  of  ambition,  have  fur- 
nished the  incentive  and  the  stimulus.  The  com- 
pletion of  the  project  of  a  deep  waterway  from 
the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  adapted  to  the  standards 
of  the  twentieth  century,  rests,  at  present,  with 
the  federal  government.  Despite  the  conflict  over 
the  project  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  state  of 
Illinois  would  readily  develop  the  waterway  down 
to  Utica  on  as  large  a  scale  as  the  federal  govern- 
ment would  carry  it  on  to  the  Gulf.  Part  of  the 
indifference,  if  not  of  the  active  opposition,  to 
the  fourteen  foot  channel  is  due  to  a  belief  that 
its  effects  would  be  neutralized  by  the  shallower 
channel  below.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
ultimate  enlargement  of  the  waterway  at  least 
down  to  Utica,  but  whether  that  enlargement 
shall  take  the  form  of  the  fourteen  foot  channel  or 
one  of  less  proportions  only  future  developments 
can  determine. 


Chapter  VI 
CONCLUSION 

The  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  has  played  a 
notable  part  in  the  history  of  the  state.  The 
project  for  its  construction  grew  out  of  the  well 
recognized  importance  of  the  development  of 
commercial  routes  between  the  Mississippi  valley 
and  the  Atlantic  seaboard  cities  that  would  mate- 
rially lessen  the  excessive  economic  burdens  of 
transportation.  In  the  effort  to  establish  such 
"through  routes"  the  construction  of  a  canal  was 
proposed  at  almost  every  portage  from  western 
Pennsylvania  to  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin  Rivers. 
Physiographically,  the  Chicago  portage  offered 
the  most  feasible  place  for  an  artificial  connection 
between  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi 
system.  The  necessary  length  of  a  canal  across 
this  portage  would  not  be  great.  The  elevation 
to  be  overcome  was  less  than  elsewhere.  The 
available  water  supply  was  abundant.  No  other 
proposed  route  possessed  all  these  advantages. 
Despite  these  advantages,  however,  the  project 
languished  till  the  construction  of  the  Erie  Canal 
provided  for  the  commerce  of  the  lake  region  a 
more  direct  and  inexpensive  route  to  the  Atlantic 
coast  markets  than  was  furnished  by  the  St.  Law- 
rence, and  till  the  admission  of  Illinois  to  the  Union 


CONCLUSION  155 

and  the  increasing  population  of  this  and  neigh- 
boring states  provided  a  local  interest  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  proposed  canal,  and  consequently 
furnished  a  persistent  and  effective  demand  for  it. 

It  was  due  to  the  financial  difficulties  which 
beset  the  young  state  that  more  than  a  score  of 
years  were  permitted  to  elapse  after  the  land  grant 
by  the  federal  government,  before  a  cargo  of  freight 
passed  through  the  canal.  These  difficulties  were 
augmented  by  the  unwise  extension  of  other  inter- 
nal improvement  schemes  in  the  state,  by  the 
financial  panic  of  1837,  and  by  the  failure  of  the 
State  Bank  of  Illinois  in  1842.  Itself  the  cause 
of  more  than  one-third  of  the  enormous  debt 
which  threatened  to  drive  Illinois  into  bankruptcy 
and  repudiation,  the  canal  furnished  the  means  of 
escape  from  impending  financial  ruin. 

While  the  canal  played  an  important  part  as  a 
commercial  route  between  the  East  and  the  West 
before  the  rise  of  railroad  transportation,  its  in- 
fluence on  the  economic  development  of  the  region 
adjacent  to  it  was  even  more  marked  as  is  attested 
by  the  growth  of  population,  industry,  and  com- 
merce in  that  portion  of  the  state,  in  the  quarter 
of  a  century  from  1830  to  1855.  It  not  only  trans- 
formed a  wilderness  into  a  settled  and  prosperous 
community,  but  it  made  Chicago  the  metropolis 
of  the  Mississippi  valley.  For  half  a  century  the 
influence  of  the  canal  was  felt  as  a  transportation 
route  and  as  a  freight  rate  regulator.  But  this 
influence  was  gradually  undermined,  first,  by  the 
unsatisfactory  condition  of  the  Illinois  river  chan- 


i56      THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

nel  during  a  portion  of  almost  every  year  and  by 
the  delay  of  the  state  and  federal  governments  in 
relieving  these  conditions.  Secondly,  by  the  in- 
creasing inadequacy  of  the  canal  to  meet  the 
growing  demand  of  an  enlarging  commerce  and 
thirdly,  by  the  ever  increasing  efficiency  of  the 
competing  railroad  service. 

An  agitation  seven  decades  long,  for  an  effective 
waterway  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Mississippi 
has  resulted  in  a  river  channel  improvement  in- 
adequate for  present  commercial  needs  and  a 
canal  from  the  upper  Mississippi  to  the  upper 
Illinois,  the  traffic  of  which  can  not  reach  Chicago 
without  the  expense  and  delay  incident  to  a  trans- 
fer of  cargo.  The  sanitary  necessities  of  Chicago, 
however,  having  led  to  the  construction  of  the 
most  expensive  portion  of  a  deep  waterway  of 
sufficient  dimensions  to  meet  the  needs  of  twentieth 
century  commerce,  and  the  state  of  Illinois  having 
become  thoroughly  interested  in  the  project  and 
committed  to  an  important  extension  of  the  work 
already  done,  the  probability  of  the  completion  of 
an  effective  route  for  water  transportation  between 
the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  appears 
less  remote  than  at  any  previous  time  since  the 
movement  for  such  route  began.  In  fact  the  only 
probable  cause  for  failure  would  seem  to  lie  in  the 
divided  counsels  of  the  advocates  of  the  waterway. 

The  enlargement  of  the  Erie  Canal,  making  it 
possible  for  freight  to  pass  between  New  York 
and  Chicago  without  transfer,  has  given  a  new 
impetus  to  the  movement  for  a  similar  enlargement 


CONCLUSION  *  157 

of  the  waterway  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf. 
Relatively,  however,  such  a  waterway  would  be 
of  less  importance  as  a  traffic  agency  than  before 
the  development  of  railroad  transportation.  That 
it  would  still  influence  local  freight  rates  along  its 
course,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  Possibly  it 
might  cause  a  readjustment  of  rates  over  a  wide 
region  wherever  the  waterway  should  come  into 
competition  with  railway  traffic.  As  a  trans- 
portation agency,  it  would  carry  low  class  freight, 
such  as  coal,  grain,  lumber,  and  other  products  of 
the  mine,  the  forest,  and  the  field.  Even  the 
coarser  products  of  the  manufacturing  establish- 
ments might  also  be  carried  by  water  instead  of 
by  rail.  But  the  experience  of  the  old  canal  would 
indicate  that  as  adequate  terminal  facilities  must 
be  provided  along  the  waterway  as  along  the  rail- 
ways, if  the  traffic  is  again  to  turn  to  barge  instead 
of  to  railway  train.  The  opening  of  the  Panama 
Canal  has  added  still  further  to  the  importance  of 
a  waterway  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  of  sufficient 
capacity  to  carry  effectively  and  economically  the 
enlarging  commerce  of  the  Mississippi  valley.  In 
the  past,  the  transportation  problems  have  mainly 
centered  about  the  efforts  to  reach  the  eastern 
markets.  Henceforth,  the  problems  incident  to  the 
Gulf  trade  will  claim  a  larger  share  of  the  attention 
of  transportation  men  and  the  public,  as  may  also 
the  trade  between  the  interior  and  the  Pacific  coast 
and  the  Orient.  In  the  traffic  from  the  Great 
Lakes  to  the  Gulf,  the  deep  waterway  would  be  as 
conspicuous  a  factor  as  the  Erie  Canal  has  been  in 


i58     THE  ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

the  traffic  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Atlantic,  and 
as  it  promises  to  become  again  as  a  barge  canal. 

The  present  movement  for  a  deep  waterway 
from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  is  the 
direct  outcome  of  well  nigh  a  century  of  effort  to 
furnish  a  continuous  water  transportation  route 
from  New  York  to  New  Orleans  by  way  of  the 
Great  Lakes  and  the  Mississippi.  In  this  century- 
long  movement  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal 
has  played  a  worthy  part,  but  the  progress  of  the 
last  half  century  has  rendered  it  ineffective.  Like 
an  out  of  date  machine,  it  must  be  replaced  by  one 
better  adapted  to  present  needs  and  conditions.  But 
when  the  deep  waterway  shall  have  become  a  reality, 
it  will  follow  the  route  of  the  old  Illinois  and  Mich- 
igan Canal  and  it  will  perform  the  functions  so  long 
performed  by  that  historic  highway  of  commerce. 

In  final  analysis,  the  significance  of  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal  has  been  two-fold.  In  the 
first  place,  its  influence  on  the  economic  develop- 
ment of  the  region  adjacent  to  it  probably  sur- 
passed the  local  influence  of  any  other  American 
canal  except  the  Erie.  Secondly,  the  present 
movement  for  a  Lake-to-the-Gulf  deep  waterway 
is  the  logical  outgrowth  of  the  long-continued 
efforts  to  render  the  canal  and  its  river  connection 
effective  in  meeting  the  continually  enlarging  de- 
mands made  upon  them.  Had  this  canal  never  been 
constructed,  there  is  little  probability  that  the  deep 
waterway  proposition  would  now  be  seriously  con- 
sidered. No  small  part  of  the  strength  of  the  pres- 
ent movement  is  due  to  its  historical  antecedents. 


APPENDICES 


Appendix  I 

TOLLS,   EXPENDITURES  AND  TONNAGE  OF 
THE    ILLINOIS   AND    MICHIGAN    CANAL 


Year 

Gross 

Tolls 

Tons 

expenses 

Transported1 

1848 

£48,197 

£87,890 



1849 

7O,932 

118,371; 

1850 

/        *  7  J 

68,415 

J  J  /  J 

125,504 

1851 

^8,471; 

173,  3OO 

1852 

D     5  i  /  J 

53,508 

/  J)  J*^* 

168,577 

1853 

44,870 

173,372 



I854 

53,242 

198,326 



1855 

70,873 

l8o,qio 

1856 

91,4^8 

>  J       -7 

184.,  310 

18157 

-7     JTO 

10^,282 

L       -  _f.  „  ^    i  Vrf 

IQ7,83O 

*?  / 

1858 

J  j*"-'** 

58,088 

*7/  ,     J 
197,171 



1859 

74,432 

132,147 



1860 

82,583 

138,554 

367,437 

1861 

55,o6l 

2l8,O4O 

547,295 

1862 

55,362 

264,647 

673,590 

1863 

62,715 

210,386 

619,599 

1864 

66,107 

156,607 

510,286 

1865 

124,869 

3OO,8lO 

6l6,I4O 

1866 

116,363 

302,958 

746,815 

1867 

162,656 

252,131 

746,815 

1868 

122,052 

215,720 

737,727 

1869 

91,765 

238,759 

817,738 

1870 

108,695 

H9,635 

585,970 

1871 

97,232 

159,050 

628,975 

Statistics  of  the  tonnage  before  1860  are  not  avail- 
able. 

161 


162 

Year 

1872 
1873 
1874 
1875 
1876 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 

1881 
1882 
1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 

1905 
1906 
1907 


APPENDIX 

Gross 

Tolls 

Expenses 

$88,876 

165,874 

81,088 

166,641 

73,798 

144,831 

74,5" 

107,081 

91,595 

H3,293 

110,018 

96,913 

82,330 

84,330 

97,701 

89,065 

125,601 

92,296 

108,223 

85,130 

104,412 

85,947 

116,756 

77,975 

99,289 

77,102 

86,393 

66,800 

72,430 

62,516 

7i,385 

58,024 

76,845 

56,028 

85,478 

60,605 

75,125 

55,H2 

72,592 

49,557 

67,137 

54,937 

59,522 

38,702 

54,258 

44,928 

71,142 

39,106 

77,987 

32,100 

68,307 

33,o65 

78,986 

38,570 

91,196 

41,021 

88,317 

13,867 

111,002 

8,120 

127,150 

2,879 

52,400 

5,857 

42,761 

6,743 

50,890 

4,950 

48,523 

5,358 

50,050 

2,126 

Tons 
Transported 

783,641 

849,533 
712,020 
670,025 

691,943 
605,912 
698,792 

669,559 

751,360 

826,133 

I,OII,287 

925,575 
956,721 

827,355 
808,019 

742,074 
751,055 
917,047 

742,392 
641,156 
783,288 
529,816 
6l7,8ll 

591,507 
446,762 

484,575 
395,017 
469,352 

121,759 
81,456 
35,824 
62,894 
47,616 
38,820 
35,48o 
80,616 


APPENDIX  163 

Year                        Gross                            Tolls  Tons 

Expenses  Transported 

1908  60,345            2,985  312,500 

1909  48,294            2,170  352,600 

1910  57,938        3,754  374,500 
19"       39,877        2,816  362,652 

1912  49,523        1,875  384,729 

1913  49,103        2,712  395,654 
I9H       45,955        3,292  487,328 
1915       35,756        1,336  358,550 

$6,631,007  74,031,104 


Appendix  II 


LIST  OF  OFFICERS  AND  AGENTS  EMPLOYED 
BY  THE  BOARD  OF  CANAL  COMMISSIONERS 

November  30,  1915 
R.  F.  Burt,  general  superintendent;  salary,  *$2, 500.00; 

began  Feb.  i,  1914. 
John   K.   Monahan,   chief   clerk;   salary,    *#2,4Oo.oo; 

began  July  22,  1912. 
Margaret  O'Brien,  assistant  clerk  and  stenographer; 

salary,  *$78o.oo;  began  Nov.  i,  1908. 
W.  A.  Panneck,  attorney;  salary,   *$2, 500.00;  began 

Aug.  5,  1913. 
H.  M.  Coulehan,  assistant  treasurer;  salary,  *$36o.oo; 

began  Oct.  i,  1914. 
W.  E.  Hemmerle,  collector  tolls  at  Ottawa;  salary, 

"£900.00;  began  Dec.  7,  1913. 
Elias    B.    Wright,    collector   tolls    at   Henry;    salary, 

*$9OO.oo;  began  Oct.  24,  1913. 
Wm.  H.  Richards,  collector  tolls  at  Copperas  Creek; 

salary,  *$9OO.oo;  began  July  3,  1915. 
James    T.    Walsh,    assistant    superintendent;    salary, 

*$i, 500.00;  began  Jan.  3,  1914. 
Thos.    Coyne,    locktender    No.    i;    salary,    t#35-O°; 

began  Jan.  16,  1914. 
Michael  McFadden,  locktender  No.  5;  salary,  t$5O.oo; 

began  Oct.  21,  1913. 
Wm.    Brannick,    locktender    Nos.    6    and    7;    salary, 

t#5Q.oo;  began  Oct.  i,  1913. 

*  Per  annum, 
t  Per  month. 

164 


APPENDIX  165 

Wm.  Wood,  locktender  No.  8;  salary,  t#35-Oo;  began 

Oct.  i,  1913. 
Timothy  Driscoll,  locktender  Nos.  9  and  10;  salary, 

f$5O.oo;  began  Mar.  I,  1914. 
Mrs.  Geo.  Funk,  locktender,  No.  n;  salary,  f$35-OO; 

began  Feb.  17,  1896. 
Michael  Looney,  locktender  No.  12    salary,  t$35-OO; 

began  April  I,  1913. 
Chas.  Hasenkamper,  locktender  No.  13;  salary,  t$35-OO; 

began  April  I,  1914. 
John  Roach,  locktender  Nos.  14  and  15;  salary,  t$5o.oo; 

began  Dec.  15,  1913. 
Chas.  Carrier,  locktender  at  Henry;  salary,  £$40.00; 

began  July  I,  1912. 
Chas.  Tompkins,  locktender  at  Copperas  Creek;  salary, 

$40.00;  began  Dec.  16,  1914. 

t  Per  month. 

t  Per  month  during  navigation. 


Appendix  III 

ILLINOIS    AND    MICHIGAN    CANAL    TOLLS 
AND  LOCKAGE  CHARGES,  1848  &  1915 

Tolls  upon  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  for 
the  year  184.8. 

1 .  Rates  of  Toll  on  Boats. 

Cents  Mills 

On  each  boat  used  chiefly  for  transporting 

common  freight,  3^  cents  per  mile 3  5 

On  each  boat  used  chiefly  for  transporting 

mineral  coal,  3  cents  per  mile 3  .  . 

On  each  boat  used  for  transporting  passengers, 
6  cents  per  mile 6 

2.  On  Passengers. 

On  each  passenger  8  years  old  and  upwards, 

4  mills  per  mile o      4 

Note.  Each  passenger  8  years  old  and  upwards 
shall  be  allowed  60  pounds  baggage  or  household 
furniture  (if  belonging  to  or  used  by  such  passenger) 
free  of  toll. 

3.  On    the    following    named    articles,    toll    is 
computed  according  to  weight  —  that  is  to  say, 
the  following  rates  per  mile  are  charged  on  each 
looo  pounds,  and  in  the  same  proportion  for  a 
lesser  or  a  greater  weight: 

166 


APPENDIX 


167 


Mills 

Ale 10 

Agricultural    imple- 
ments   10 

Animals,  domestic .  .  10 

Anvils 15 

Ashes,  wood 4 

Beef 8 

Beans 10 

Bread 10 

Beer 10 

Butter.  .                   .  10 


20 

Beeswax 10 

Bacon 8 

Brooms 10 

Broom  handles 10 

Broom  corn 10 

Bristles 10 

Buhr  blocks 12 

Barley 10 

Buckwheat 10 

Blooms 15 

Bran 5 

Bark,  tanners' 5 

Barrels,  empty 10 

Coffee 12 

Crockery,  in  crates . .   15 

Cheese 10 

Crackers 10 

Cordage 10 

Cotton,  bagging 10 

Cotton,  raw  in  bales    10 

Coopers'  ware 10 

Carpenters'  and  join- 
ers' work 10 

Carriages 10 


Mill, 

Candles 10 

Corn 3 

Cider 8 

Clocks 20 

Charcoal 5 

Coal i 

Coke ^y^ 

Clay 2 

Eggs 10 

Flour 7>£ 

Flax 10 

Fruit,  home 10 

Fruit,  foreign 15 

Fish 10 

Furniture,  household  20 

Feathers 15 

Flags,  for  chairs ....    15 
Furs  and  peltries,  all 

kinds 25 

Grease 7 

Ginseng 10 

Grindstones 6 

Gypsum 6 

Glass  and  glassware .  1 5 

Hemp 7# 

Hides 10 

Horns  and  tips 10 

Hair 10 

Hoops 15 

Hams 10 

Household  furniture, 
accompanied      by 
and  belonging  to 
families  emigrating  15 
Hay  and  fodder  ....     5 
Heading 3 


i68 


APPENDIX 


Mills 
Hoops,  and  materials 

for 3 

Hobs,    boat     knees 

and  bolts 2 

Iron,  pig  and  scrap. .     7^ 
Iron,  wrought  or  cast  12 

Iron  tools 15 

Ice I 

Leather 15 

Lard 8 

Lime,  common 3 

Lime,  hydraulic ....     3 
Lead,  pigs  and  bars  .      I 
Merchandise,  includ- 
ing dry  goods,  gro- 
ceries,    hardware, 
cutlery,   crockery, 
and  glassware,  and 
all    other   articles 

not  specified 15 

Manilla 10 

Molasses,    in    hogs- 
heads or  barrels. . .    12 

Malt 7K 

Meal 5 

Marble,  unwrought .     6 
Marble,  wrought.  ..    15 

Marble  dust 9 

Millstones 12 

Machinery 12 

Mechanics'  tools ...   15 

Manure 3 

Nuts 9 

Nails. 12 

Oats 3 

Oil  cake  .  6 


Mills 

Oil,  linseed  and  corn.  12 

Oil,  lard 10 

Ore 3 

Peas 10 

Provisions,  salt  and 

fresh 10 

Pork 8 

Pot  and  pearl  ashes.  10 

Porter 10 

Palm  leaf 10 

Potter's  ware 10 

Pitch 10 

Potatoes,  and  other 

vegetables 6 

Paper 15 

Powder 15 

Rags 9 

Rosin 9 

Rye 6 

Salt 6 

Seeds 10 

Saleratus 10 

Salts  of  lye 10 

Soap 10 

Sumach 10 

Sugar 12 

Skins,  animal 10 

Sleds  and  sleighs .  ..  10 

Saddle  trees 10 

Shorts    and    screen- 
ings   5 

Ship  stuff 5 

Spikes 12 

Starch 10 

Shot 10 

Steel 15 


APPENDIX  169 

Mills  Mill* 

Spirits,  except  whis-  Tobacco,  not  manu- 

key 25  factured 7^ 

Straw 4  Tobacco,  manuf act- 
Staves  3  ured 15 

Sand,     and    other  Veneering 10 

earths 2  Vinegar 10 

Stone,     cut     and  Wheat1 7 

sawed 3  Whiskey   and   high- 
Tallow 8  wines 10 

Tar 10  Wool 10 

Tombstones,    not  Wooden  ware 10 

marble 6  Wagons    and    other 

Trees,    shrubs,    and  vehicles 10 

plants 6  White  lead 15 

4.  On  the  following  named  articles  toll  per  mile 
is  computed  by  number  or  measure. 

Centa  Mills 

On  each  1000  ft.  (board  measure)  of  lumber  per 

mile I 

On  each  100  cubic  ft.  of  timber,  hewed  or  round, 

if  transported  in  boats I   ... 

On  same,  if  transported  in  rafts 2   ... 

On  each  loco  brick I    ... 

On  each  loco  laths  or  shingles 2^ 

On  each  100  split  posts  or  rails  for  fencing I    ... 

On  each  cord  of  wood  for  fuel I  2 

On  each  cubic  yard  (27  cubic  ft.)  dressed  stone. .    .   5 
On  each  cubic  yard  (27  cubic  ft.)  undressed 
stone 2 

In  ascertaining  the  amount  of  toll  chargeable  on 
any  article,  the  weight  of  the  cask,  box,  bag,  crate, 

aDuring  the  months  of  October  and  November, 
1848,  this  rate  was  reduced  to  5  mills  per  mile  per  icoo 
pounds. 


i7o  APPENDIX 

vessel,  or  thing,  in  which  said  article  is  contained, 
is  added  to  the  weight  of  the  article  itself,  and  the 
toll  computed  accordingly. 

If  two  or  more  articles,  chargeable  with  different 
rates  of  toll,  be  contained  in  the  same  cask,  box, 
or  vessel,  the  whole  is  charged  with  the  highest 
rates  of  tolls  chargeable  on  any  article  so  con- 
tained. 

The  rafting  of  timber  on  the  Canal  or  the  feeders 
is  prohibited,  unless  by  written  special  agreement 
with  the  Superintendent  of  the  Canal.  Any  viola- 
tion of  this  order  subjects  the  person  violating  it 
to  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  every  such  offence. 


ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL  TOLLS,  1915 

The  following  rates  of  tolls  and  lockage  on  the 
Canal  and  at  the  locks  at  Henry  and  Copperas 
Creek  in  the  Illinois  River,  adopted  by  the  Board 
of  Canal  Commissioners  in  1914,  are  still  in 
force. 

By  Resolution  of  the  Board  of  Canal  Commissioners, 
Adopted  on  April  2,  1914,  to  Take  Effect  on  and 
after  April  75,  1914. 

All  boats  without  cargo  shall  pay  as  tolls  on  the 
canal  at  the  rate  of  three  cents  (30)  per  mile  between 
the  Deep  Lock  at  Joliet  and  La  Salle,  Illinois,  a  distance 
of  sixty-three  (63)  miles,  and  the  same  rate  to  and  from 
all  intermediate  points.  Where  boats  lock  from  Deep 
Lock  into  or  out  of  the  Drainage  Channel  from  or  to 
Joliet  a  charge  of  fifty  cents  (SOG)  lockage  each  way 
shall  be  made. 


APPENDIX 


Articles 


I7I 

Through  Local       Lockage 

Freight  Freight 

Lockage  in 
Tolls  in  mills  Tolls  in  mills    cents 


Barbed  wire  ...................  ^          ^        3 

Bark,  tanners'  .................  I             i             i 

Barley  ........................  ^           K         i 

Barrels,  empty  .................  2             2             3 

Beans  .........................  I             i             3 

Bran  ..........................  I             i             3 

Buckwheat  ....................  -^           ^         \ 

Charcoal  ......................  I             i             3 

Clay  ..........................  %          y,        3 

Coal,  per  ton  per  mile  ...........  ^           i^         3 

Coke  ..........................  X          X         3 

Corn  .............  ,  .............  i                          3 

Drainage  pipe  ..................  i                          3 

Flour  .........................  i                          3 

Furniture,  household  ............  2                          3 

Hay  and  fodder  ...............  I                           3 

Hemp  .........................  i                          3 

Hoops  and  material  for  .........  i                          3 

Hubs,  boat  knees  and  bolts  ......  I                           3 

ice  ...........  .  ...............  \y*      2         i 

Iron,  pig,  scrap  and  railroad  .....  ^          ^        2 

Iron,  wrought  and  cast  ..........  113 

Iron  ore  .............  ..........  K           K         2 

Land  plaster,  bone  dust  and  sup- 

er-phosphate ................  I             I             i 

Lead,  pipe,  sheet  and  rool,  pigs  and 

bars  ........................  I             i             3 

Lime,  common  .................  i             I             2 

Lime,  hydraulic  ................  I             I             2 

Machinery  ....................  2             2             3 

Meal  .........................  i             i             3 

Merchandise  (including  hardware, 

dry    goods,    cutlery,    groceries, 

crockery  and  other  articles  not 

specified)  ....................  i             I             3 


1 72  APPENDIX 

Throiurh 

Freight 


Articles  Through         _Local       Lockage 


Lockage  i 

Tolls  in  mills  Tolls  in  mills  cents 

Oats A  K         i 

Rye Tflu        K       i 

Salt  in  sacks  and  barrels I  I  2 

Sand  and  other  earth %          %         i 

Seeds I  I  3 

Ship  stuff I  I  3 

Shorts  and  screenings I  I  3 

Staves  and  headings I  I  3 

Wheat T«fl  y*         i 

Zinc  spelter I  I  3 


On  the  following  articles  toll  per  mile  and  lockage  will 
be  computed  by  number  and  measures, 

Articles  Through      Local  Lockage 

Freight     Freight 

Tolls  in     Tolls  in 

mills         mills          Lockage  in 
per  mile     per  mile  cents 

On  each  1,000  feet  of  lumber 5  5 

On    each    1,000    feet    of    dressed 

flooring 4  5 

On  each  1,000  feet  of  siding 2  1% 

On  each  1,000  feet  lath I  \% 

On  each  1,000  shingles ^  i 

On  each  1,000  brick 225 

On  each  1,000  split  posts  (not  over 

5  inches  in  diameter)  or  fence 

rails 3  4  5 

On  each  500  railroad  ties 15  20  8 

fOn  each  cord  of  wood  or  fuel 8  10  8 

fProvided  that  on  wood  transported  over  25  miles, 
the  toll  shall  not  exceed  25  cents  per  cord.  All  timber 
on  boats  shall  be  taken  board  measure. 


APPENDIX  i73 

Article  Through        Local     Lockage 

Freight       Freight 

Tolls  in      Tolls  in 

mills  mills    Lockage  in 

per  mile      per  mile       cent* 

*On  each  cubic  yard   (27  cu.   ft.) 

dressed  or  sawed  stone 7  8  15 

*0n  each  cubic  yard  (27  cu.  ft.) 

rubble  stone 4  5  10 

*0n  each  cubic  yard  (27  cu.  ft.) 

dimension  stone 6  8  15 

*On  each  cubic  yard  (27  cu.  ft.) 

macadam  stone 2  2  9 

Passengers  (each  round  trip  of  25 

miles  or  less  on  canal)  2>£  cents 

each ...       5 

On   lumber  shipments  from   Chicago   to   points   named 
below,  the  following  rates  of  toll  will  be  charged,  ff 

ARTICLES 


FROM 
CHICAGO 
To                 ] 

Lemont  

ICOO 

Feet  of 
Dumber 

CtS. 

IO 

1000 

Feet  of 
Dressed 
Flooring 
Cts. 

8 

1000 

Feet  of 
Siding 

Cts. 

ICOO          IOC 

Lath      Shii 

Cts.         C 
2 

X) 

igle 

ts. 

Lockport 

12 

q  6 

4.  8 

2   4. 

2 

Joliet  

I-l 

IO  4. 

T'" 

C    2 

*«T 

2   6 

•j 

Bird's  Bridge  
Channahon 

H 
1C 

II.  2 

12 

5-6 

6 

2.8 

-I 

.4 

c 

Morris  

17 

n  6 

6.8 

-i    4 

7 

Seneca 

18 

14.  4. 

7   2 

1  6 

8 

Marseilles  .  .    . 

IQ 

1C   2 

7  6 

1.8 

o 

Ottawa  

2O 

16 

8 

4-            - 

I 

Utica 

22 

17  6 

8.8 

4.  4. 

1.2 

La  Salle  

27 

18.4. 

0.2 

4.6      i 

-.1 

Henry  and  below. 

16 

12.8 

6.4 

3.2        1 

.6 

*Provided  that  on  stone  transported  over  25  miles, 
the  toll  shall  not  exceed  12  %  cents  per  cubic  yard  on 
macadam  and  rubble,  and  25  per  cent  per  cubic  yard 
on  dimensions  and  dressed  or  sawed  stone. 


i74  APPENDIX 

"Through  freight"  is  that  which  is  cleared  from 
Copperas  Creek  or  Henry  to  Chicago,  or  from  Chicago 
to  Henry  or  Copperas  Creek. 

"Local  freight"  includes  all  other  freight. 

ttProvided  that  on  lumber  cleared  to  the  same  point, 
100,000  feet  shall  be  considered  a  full  canal  boat  load — 
all  over  that  free  of  toll.  Flooring,  siding,  lath,  and 
shingles  to  be  figured  on  the  same  basis. 

Provided  that  on  clearances  from  Chicago  to  Cop- 
peras Creek,  or  from  Copperas  Creek  to  Chicago,  the 
lockage  on  boat  and  cargo  shall  be  one-half  the  above 
rate  of  each  lock,  provided  the  cargo  is  not  transferred 
before  reaching  destination  as  cleared. 

Provided  that  boats  passing  both  locks  in  the  Illinois 
River  shall  be  charged  one-half  the  above  rate  of  lock- 
age at  each  lock,  on  cargo,  but  shall  pay  the  straight 
lockage  charge  on  boats  at  each  lock. 

Boats  entering  the  canal  at  La  Salle,  and  passing 
out  again  without  proceeding  as  far  as  Ottawa,  shall 
be  charged  $1.00  each,  if  the  toll  on  boat  and  cargo 
at  above  rates  should  not  amount  to  $1.00. 

The  weight  of  a  box,  crate,  vessel,  or  thing  in  which  any 
article  may  be  contained,  shall  be  added  to  the  weight 
of  the  article  itself  and  toll  computed  accordingly. 

Duplicate  bills  of  lading  required  in  all  cases,  one 
to  be  deposited  with  the  collector  to  whom  toll  or 
lockage  is  paid. 


Appendix  IV 

The  results  of  the  latest  efforts  to  use  the  old 
canal  as  a  practicable  transportation  agency  are 
given  in  the  following  letter  and  the  accompanying 
statement  of  operations  of  the  Morton  Salt  Com- 
pany. The  letter  also  clearly  states  Mr.  Mor- 
ton's attitude  toward  the  two  rival  projects  for 
an  enlarged  and  improved  waterway. 

11-15-1915 

Lieut.  Col.  W.  V.  Judson, 
Corps  of  Engineers, 
U.  S.  Engineers'  Office, 
Chicago,  Illinois. 

Dear  Sir:  In  urging  your  approval  of  the  plans 
for  the  construction  of  the  Illinois  waterway,  as 
authorized  by  the  act  of  the  State  Legislature, 
approved  May  27,  1915,  I  beg  to  report  the  prac- 
tical results  attained  by  this  Company  in  three 
years'  operation  of  three  old  canal  boats  running 
between  Chicago  and  Davenport,  Iowa,  via  the 
Illinois  and  Michigan  and  Hennepin  Canals  and 
their  Illinois  River  connection. 

The   idea   of  utilizing   the   existing  waterways 

for  the  transportation  of  salt  from  Chicago  to  the 

west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  River,  occurred  to  us 

in  the  Spring  of  1912,  the  intention  then  being  to 

i75 


i76  APPENDIX 

try  and  get  one  boat  through  to  the  Mississippi 
River  merely  as  an  experiment.  The  result  of  the 
first  voyage  was  more  satisfactory  than  we  had 
anticipated,  notwithstanding  there  was  but  little 
water  in  the  old  canal  and  under  the  advice  of  an 
experienced  canal  man,  we  put  a  very  small  cargo 
in  the  boat,  because  of  the  shallow  depth  of  the 
old  canal. 

The  boat,  the  "Peerless,"  left  Robey  Street, 
Chicago,  at  5  :oo  o'clock  on  the  afternoon  of  June 
I,  1912,  arriving  at  Lockport  at  9 145  P.  M. 

Left  Lockport  June  2nd  at  6:15  A.  M.  and 
arrived  at  Morris,  Illinois,  at  5:55  P.M. 

June  3rd,  left  Morris  at  6:00  A.M.  and  arrived  at 
Marseilles  at  7:25  P.M. 

June  4th,  left  Marseilles  at  6:12  A.M.  and  arrived 
at  Lock  No.  n  at  4:55  P.M. 

June  5th,  left  Lock  No.  n  at  5:50  A.M.  and 
arrived  at  the  Illinois  River  at  3:35  P.M. —  almost 
four  days  from  Lockport  to  La  Salle  —  a  distance 
of  sixty- three  miles. 

Arrived  at  Marquette  for  coal  at  5  :i 5  P.M.  Had 
to  wait  there  because  the  U.  S.  Steamer  "Marion" 
was  coaling. 

June  6th,  left  Marquette  at  7:45  A.M.  and  arrived 
at  the  Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal  at  8:30  A.M. 
Passed  through  Lock  No.  I  at  8:40  to  8:50  A.M.; 
passed  the  ten-mile  post  at  1.28  P.M.;  reached  the 
19-mile  post  at  6:50  P.M.,  having  passed  through 
twenty-one  locks  in  about  ten  hours. 

June  7th,  the  "  Peerless  "  arrived  at  Lock  No.  29 
at  6:15  P.M.  and  passed  into  the  Rock  River,  where 


APPENDIX  177 

it  met  the  Government  Pilot  sent  there  on  the 
order  of  Major  Keller. 

June  8th,  left  Milan  at  8:33  A.M.  and  passed 
through  Lock  No.  37  into  the  Mississippi  River 
and  down  the  River  to  Muscatine,  at  a  speed  of 
twelve  miles  per  hour,  arriving  at  Muscatine  at 
1 2  -40  P.M. 

This  trip  was  accomplished  by  a  very  old, 
wooden  boat,  in  poor  condition.  We  had  to  keep 
her  pumps  going  all  the  way  to  keep  her  afloat. 
Under  the  circumstances,  we  were  so  encouraged 
by  the  remarkable  trip  she  made  that  we  had  the 
boat  repaired  and  secured  another  old  steamboat, 
the  "Niagara,"  and  also  the  only  canal  tow-barge 
that  was  available,  and  put  all  three  to  carrying 
salt  to  Davenport,  which,  we  found,  would  be  a 
better  terminus  for  us  than  Muscatine.  These 
boats  were  kept  in  the  trade  during  the  summers 
of  1912,  1913,  and  1914,  except  during  the  period 
of  the  break  at  Mineral  on  the  Hennepin  Canal  in 
1912,  and  a  statement  of  their  operations  is  hereto 
attached.  Their  trip  movement  shows  54  loads 
and  6  trips  light  'west  bound;  40  loads  and  19 
trips  light  east  bound;  or  a  total  of  119  one-way 
trip  loads  —  79%  loads  and  21%  light. 

The  capacity  of  the  boats  was  150  to  175  tons 
of  cargo,  but,  owing  to  shallow  water  in  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal,  we  were  able  to  load  an 
average  of  only  97  tons  per  boat;  whereas,  had  we 
had  a  draft  of  4'  8",  which  is  the  normal  draft  in 
the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  we  could  have 
carried  easily  150  tons  to  the  load.  Had  our  94 


i78  APPENDIX 

loads  been  of  150  tons,  we  would  have  carried 
14,103  tons  instead  of  9,134  tons,  and  the  operating 
cost  would  not  have  exceeded  $1.17  per  ton,  or 
63 c  per  ton  less  than  it  actually  cost,  on  account  of 
shallow  water  in  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal, 
and  the  condition  of  the  antiquated  boats  we  were 
compelled  to  use  —  boats  that  were  more  than 
forty  years  old  and  the  only  survivors,  so  far  as 
we  could  ascertain,  of  the  big  fleet  that  once  navi- 
gated the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal,  and  two  of 
these  boats  were  fished  out  of  the  bottom  of  the 
Illinois  River  to  be  put  into  this  service. 

After  careful  investigation,  we  are  confidently 
of  the  opinion  that  a  motor  canal  boat  of  150  tons 
capacity,  i.  e.,  the  same  size  as  the  three  boats  we 
used  and  drawing  5-ft.  of  water,  could  have  made 
the  119  trips  loaded  to  capacity  and  made  a  good 
profit  in  the  operation  at  a  freight  of  8oc  per  ton; 
whereas  a  motor  canal  boat  of  maximum  capacity 
to  pass  through  the  present  locks  of  the  Hennepin 
Canal,  say  30  x  155  ft.,  would  easily  carry  700  tons 
from  Chicago  to  Davenport  for  less  than  5oc  per 
ton,  after  making  full  allowance  for  interest  and 
depreciation  on  the  boat. 

The  success  of  these  pioneer  operations  in  the 
esfeblishment  of  a  through  line  from  Chicago  to 
the  Mississippi  River,  via  existing  waterways,  was 
handicapped  not  only  by  the  old  boats,  but  be- 
cause there  were  no  loading  and  unloading  facili- 
ties on  the  Mississippi  River  nor  along  the  line  of 
the  canals  in  Illinois.  Our  boats  were  long  de- 
layed in  discharging  their  cargoes  on  the  Iowa 


APPENDIX  I79 

side  of  the  Mississippi  and  there  were  few  elevators 
along  the  line  of  the  canal  suitable  for  loading 
grain.  Some  of  our  loads  of  grain  were  taken  from 
farmers'  wagons  through  holes  in  bridges  across 
the  canal,  and  by  other  make-shift  arrangements 
—  all  of  which  greatly  delayed  the  boats,  but  the 
fact  that  when  the  boat  was  loaded  and  had  water 
enough  to  float  it,  we  made  excellent  time  and 
conveyed  freight  at  very  reasonable  cost,  con- 
vinced us  that  the  operation  of  canal  boats  across 
the  State  of  Illinois,  in  a  waterway  of  sufficient 
capacity  to  accommodate  a  power  boat  towing 
a  barge  which,  together,  could  carry  as  much 
freight  as  a  railroad  freight  train,  is  entirely 
feasible,  profitable,  and  expeditious  —  our  con- 
clusions as  to  the  latter  having  been  made  from 
the  fact  that  every  autumn  during  the  three  years 
we  operated,  we  were  able  to  deliver  grain  from 
point  of  shipment  to  the  Chicago  elevators  quicker 
than  it  was  delivered  from  the  same  points  by 
rail,  and  much  of  the  grain  we  carried  was  so 
carried  because  there  were  no  cars  available  for 
shipment  on  account  of  the  annual  congestion  in 
the  railroad  yards  at  Chicago,  which,  of  course, 
did  not  affect  the  delivery  of  grain  to  elevators 
by  canal  boats. 

We  have,  for  many  years,  operated  a  line  of 
Lake  boats,  and,  prior  to  this  experience  on  the 
Canal,  were  inclined  to  favor  the  proposed  I4~ft. 
waterway,  but  now  we  have  learned  that,  even 
if  we  had  a  canal  I4~ft.  deep  or  even  2O-ft.  deep, 
we  could  not  afford  to  send  our  Lake  boats  inland 


i8o  APPENDIX 

—  partly  on  account  of  the  necessary  canal  speed 
regulations,  but  chiefly  because  of  their  much 
greater  construction  cost  per  ton  of  cargo  capacity 
and  the  fact  that  they  are  obliged  to  carry  a  larger 
crew  than  a  canal  boat;  and  for  the  further  reason 
that  a  transfer  of  cargo  at  the  Lake  harbor  can  be 
accomplished  by  present  unloading  facilities  so 
cheaply  that  it  would  not  pay  to  send  a  Lake 
carrier  into  the  canal.  Besides,  loading  and  un- 
loading facilities  adequate  for  prompt  handling  of 
modern  canal  boats  can  be  built  at  a  compara- 
tively small  cost  any  place  along  the  canal;  where- 
as, the  facilities  necessary  to  handle  Lake  boats 
are  very  expensive. 

Our  experience  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  a 
wide  canal,  with  8-ft.  depth  of  water,  is  desirable 
as  compared  with  a  narrow  waterway  of  greater 
depth.  We  must  have  boats  of  sufficient  cargo 
capacity  to  compete  with  freight  train  loads, 
instead  of  freight  car  loads,  and  we  prefer  to  get 
such  capacity  through  increasing  the  beam  of  the 
boat,  rather  than  the  depth  of  the  hold. 

Yours  truly, 

MORTON  SALT  COMPANY, 
By  Joy  Morton,  President. 


APPENDIX 


181 


STATEMENT  OF  MOVEMENT  OF  MORTON  SALT 
COMPANY'S  CANAL  BOATS  ON  ILLINOIS  &  MICHI- 
GAN AND  HENNEPIN  CANALS,  1912-1913-1914. 


From 

To 

1912 

12  loads  salt 

Chicago 

Davenport 

2       "          " 

" 

LaSalle 

2  light 

" 

LaSalle 

10  loads  grain 

Utica 

Chicago 

4     "      cement 

La  Salle 

" 

2  light 

Davenport 

*' 

1913 

22  loads  salt 

Chicago 

Davenport 

4  light 

" 

Morris 

12  loads  grain 

Hennepin  Canal 

Chicago 

6     "         " 

Morris 

tt 

8  light 

Davenport 

" 

1914 

1  8  loads  salt 

Chicago 

Davenport 

6     "     grain 

Hennepin  Canal 

Chicago 

2     "     lumber 

La  Salle 

" 

9  light 

Davenport 

" 

Total 

52  loads  salt 

Chicago 

Davenport 

2       "          " 

" 

La  Salle 

2  light 

" 

" 

4     " 

" 

Morris 

10  loads  grain 

Utica 

Chicago 

18     " 

Hennepin  Canal 

" 

6     " 

Morris 

" 

4     "     cement 

La  Salle 

" 

2     "      lumber 

" 

" 

19  light 

Davenport 

" 

U  loads  West  bound 

6  light      " 

"            94  loads 

79% 

4.0  loads  East  bound 

19  light 

25  light 

21% 

119 

100% 

i8a  APPENDIX 

TONS  CARRIED  AND  FREIGHT  REVENUE 

Tons  Revenue 

Salt 5,322  $5,745-27 

Grain 3,216  3.797-53 

Cement 386  292.49 

Lumber 210  228.00 

Charter __LH  125.00 

Totals 9»i34  $10,188.29 

OPERATING  EXPENSES        Cost  per  Ton  on 

Amounts    Cargo  Carried 

I.  &  M.  Canal  tolls $1,041.41  .114 

Wages  (includes  lay  up  and  fit 

out) 7,455.20  .816 

Steward's  Dept. : 

Provisions 2,264.00  . 248 

Coal  and  washing 8.03  .0009 

Sundries 81.01  .009 

General  sundries IO3-I5  -°ii 

Mate's  Dept.: 

Ship  chandlery 296.79  .033 

Paint  and  oil J  79-34  -^20 

Engineer's  Dept.: 

Fuel 1,844.32  .202 

Oil 53.17  .006 

Repairs 724.75  .79 

Supplies 33-68  .003 

Loading    and     unloading     (ex. 

grain) 2,054.01  . 225 

Loading  and  unloading  grain  . .  360.23  .0391 

Totals $16,499.09  $i .  806 

Carried  9,134  tons  in  94  loads — average  load  97  tons. 
On  4'  8"  draft  (which  we  should  have  had) — average 

load  150  tons. 
On  94  loads  at   150  tons  each,  should  have  carried 

14,100  tons. 

Basis  14,100  tons,  operating  cost — $1.17  per  ton. 
On  actual  tonnage  carried,  received — $1.12  per  ton. 


Bibliography 

ABBOTT,  HENRY  L. 

Present  Status  of  the  Panama  Project. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  12. 

ACKERMANN,  WM.  K. 

Early  Illinois  Railroads. 
Chicago.     Fergus  Printing  Co.,  1884. 
ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS,  JR. 

Railroads:  Their  Origin  and  Problems. 
New  York,  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1878. 
ALBACH,  JAMES  R. 
Annals  of  the  West. 
Pittsburgh,  W.  S.  Haven,  1856. 
ist  ed.  Cincinnati,  1846. 
2nd  ed.  St.  Louis,  1850. 
AMERICAN  STATE  PAPERS. 
Miscellaneous,  2  vols. 

Washington,  published  by  Gales  &  Seaton,  1834. 
ANDERSON,  ALEX.  D. 

The  Mississippi  and   Its  Forty-four   Navigable 
Tributaries. 

Washington,    Government    Printing    Office, 
1890. 
ANDREAS,  A.  T. 

History  of  Chicago.     3  vols. 
Chicago,  The  A.  T.  Andreas  Company,  1885. 
183 


i84  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ANDREWS,  ISRAEL  D. 

Report  on  Colonial  and  Lake  Trade. 
Washington,  Robert  Armstrong,  Printer,  1853. 
Also  Exec.  Docs.  32nd  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  No.  112. 
Annals  of  the  West,  see  ALBACH,  JAMES  R. 
Annals  of  Congress,  1789-1824,  42  vols. 

Washington,  Gales  and  Seaton,  1834-1856. 
Annual  Reports  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of 
the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal. 
Springfield,  1836-1842  and  1872-1915. 
Annual  Reports  of  the  Chicago  Board  of  Trade. 

Chicago,  1857-1906. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works 
to  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
Chicago,  1877- 

Annual  Review  of  the  Trade  and  Commerce  of  St. 
Louis.     Compiled  for  the  Missouri  Republi- 
can.    St.  Louis,  Chambers  &  Knapp,  1848- 
1860. 
ANTHONY,  ELLIOTT. 

Sanitation  and  Navigation. 

Chicago,  Printed  by  the  Chicago  Legal  News 

Co.,  1891. 
ARCHER,  WILLIAM  B. 

Correspondence.     In    Chicago    Historical    So- 
ciety's Library. 
BAKER,  W.  B. 

Annual  Statement  of  the  Trade  and  Commerce  of 
St.  Louis. 

(Chamber  of  Commerce  Reports  for  1858- 
1860).  St.  Louis,  Printed  by  Ustick,  Studley 
&  Co.,  1859-61. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  185 

BALDWIN,  ELMER. 

History  of  La  Salle  County,  Illinois. 

Chicago,  Rand,  McNally  &  Co.,  1877. 
BENTON,  J.  E. 

The  Wdbash  Trade  Route  in  the  Development  of 
the  Old  Northwest. 

Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  XXI,  Nos.  I  and  2. 
BENTON,  THOMAS  H. 

Abridgement  of  the  Debates  of  Congress.     16  vols. 

New  York,  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1857-61. 
BILLION,  FREDERIC  L. 

Annals  of  St.  Louis  in  its  Territorial  Days. 

St.  Louis,  Printed  for  the  Author,  1888. 
BOGART,  E.  L. 

Economic  History  of  the  United  States. 

New  York,  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1907. 
BOGGESS,  ARTHUR  CLINTON. 

The  Settlement  of  Illinois,  1778-1830. 
Chicago :  Chicago  Historical  Society's  collec- 
tion, Vol.  V,  1908. 
BOURNE,  E.  G. 

The  History  of  the  Surplus  Revenue  of  1837. 

New  York,  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1885. 
BROWN,  G.  P. 

The  Drainage  Channel  and  Waterway. 

Chicago,  R.  R.  Donnelley  &  Sons  Company,  1894. 
BROWN,  HENRY. 

Present  and  Future  Prospects  of  Chicago. 

Chicago,  1846. 

History  of  Illinois. 

New  York:  J.  Winchester,  1844. 


i86  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

BROWN,  WILLIAM  H. 

Early  History  of  Illinois. 

Fergus  Historical  Series,  No.  14. 
BURGESS,  JOHN  W. 
The  Middle  Period. 

New  York,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1898. 
CALLENDER,  G.  S. 

The  Early  Transportation  and  Banking  Enter- 
prises of  the  States  in  Relation  to  the  Growth 
of  Corporations. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  XVII,  in— 
162. 
CANAL  SCRIP  FRAUD. 

Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Sangamon 
County,  Illinois  Grand  Jury  in  the  Investiga- 
tion of  the  Case. 

Springfield,  Illinois,  Daily  Journal,  1859. 
CARPENTER,  W.  H.  and  ARTHUR,  T.  S. 
History  of  Illinois. 
Philadelphia:     Claxton,    Remsen,    and    Hoffel- 

finger,  1869. 
CHANNING,   EDWARD,   and   LANSING,   MARION 

FLORENCE. 

The  Story  of  the  Great  Lakes. 
New  York:   The  Macmillan  Company,  1909. 
CHICAGO  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY. 

Collections  see  Boggess,  Edwards;  also  Fergus 

Historical  Series. 
COBBETT,  WILLIAM. 

A  Year's  Residence  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  (1817-1818).  Part  3  contains 
Hulme's  journal  of  a  tour  in  the  West  (Ohio, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  187 

Indiana  and  Illinois). 
London,  Sherwood,  1818-1819. 
COMAN,  KATHARINE. 

Industrial  History  of  the  United  States. 

New  York,   The   Macmillan   Company,    1905. 

(A  new  and  revised  edition,  1910). 
Congressional    Globe  (1833-1873),  Washington, 

1834-1873. 

Congressional  Record(  1873-),  Washington,  1873-. 
COOLEY,  L.  E. 

The  Lakes  and  Gulf  Waterway  as  Related  to  the 
Chicago  Sanitary  Problem. 
Chicago,  Press  of  John  W.  Weston,  1891. 
CROSBY,  GEORGE  H. 

History  of  the  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific 
Railroad  Company. 

Chicago,  Printed  privately  for  the  company, 
1904. 
Daily  Chicago  American,  1839-1840. 

Chicago,  1839—40. 
Daily  Democrat. 

Chicago,  1833-50. 

DAVIDSON,  and  STUVE. 

History  of  Illinois. 

Springfield,  Illinois  Journal  Co.,  1874. 
DAVIS,  W.  M. 

The  Ancient  Outlet  of  Lake  Michigan. 

Popular    Science    Monthly,    XLVI,   pp.    217- 

229. 
DAY,  CLIVE. 

A  History  of  Commerce. 

New  York,  Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1907. 


i88  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Illinois  Constitu- 
tional Convention  of  1870. 
Springfield,    E.    L.    Merrett    and    Brother, 
Printers  to  the  Convention,  1870. 
Debates  of  Congress  (1824-1837),  27  vols.,  Washing- 
ton, 1825-1837. 
DE  Bow,  J.  D.  B. 

De  Bow's  Review,  40  vols. 
New  Orleans,  1846-70. 
DONALDSON,  THOMAS. 
The  Public  Domain. 

Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1884. 
Also  in  House  Doc.  47,  Part  4,  4Oth  Cong.,  3rd 

Sess.,  1881. 
DRAKE,  SAMUEL  A. 

Making  of  the  Great  West. 
New  York,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1887. 
EDWARDS,  NINIAN. 
The  Edwards  Papers. 

Chicago  Historical  Society  Collections,  Vol.  3. 
EDWARDS,  NINIAN  W. 

History  of  Illinois  and  Life  and  Times  of  Ninian 
Edwards. 

Springfield,    Illinois:    Illinois    State    Journal 
Co.,  1870. 

Eighth  Annual  Report  of  the  Acting  Commissioner 
of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal. 
Springfield,  Walters  and  Weber,  Public  Print- 
ers, 1844. 
ELSWORTH,  H.  L. 
Illinois  in  1837. 
Philadelphia,  1837. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  189 

FAIRLIE,  JOHN  A. 

The  New  York  Canals. 

Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  XIV,  p.  212. 

The  New  York  Canals. 
FAIRLIE,  JOHN  A. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  117. 

Canal  Enlargement  in  New  York  State. 

Quarterly   Journal    of   Economics,   XVIII,    p. 
286. 

Economic  Effects  of  Ship  Canals. 

Annals  of  American  Academy,  vol.  XI,  p.  54. 
Fergus  Historical  Series,  34  volumes. 

Chicago  Fergus  Printing  Co.,  1876-1914. 
FORD,  THOMAS. 

History  of  Illinois. 

Chicago,  S.  C.  Griggs  &  Co. ;  New  York,  Ivison 

&  Phinney,  1854. 
Geological  Atlas  of  the  United  States. 

Chicago  Folio. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  1902. 
GERHARD,  FRED. 

Illinois  As  It  Is. 

Chicago,    Keen    &    Lee,     1857;    Philadelphia, 

Charles  DeSilver,  1857. 
GINDELE,  FERDINAND  V. 

The  Canal  Question. 

Chicago,  Franz  Gindele,  Printer,  1881. 
GOULD,  E.  W. 

Fifty  Years  on  the  Mississippi,  or  Gould's  History 
of  River  Navigation. 
St.  Louis,  Nixon- Jones  Printing  Co.,  1889. 


IQO  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

GRAFF,  JOSEPH  V. 

Lakes  to  the  Gulf  Waterway.     (Pamphlet.) 
Washington,  1907. 

Great  Canals  of  the  World. 

Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and  Finance, 
December,   1901. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  1901. 

GREENE,  EVARTS  B. 

Sectional  Forces  in  the  History  of  Illinois. 
Publication    No.    8,    Illinois    State    Historical 
Library,  p.  75. 

GROSS,  E.  L.,  and  W.  L. 

Index  to  the  Laws  of  Illinois,  1818-1869. 
Springfield,  E.  L.,  and  W.  L.  Gross,  1869. 

HADLEY,  A.  T. 

Railroad  Transportation. 

New  York,  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1885. 

HAUPT,  LEWIS  M. 

Canals  and  Their  Economic  Relations  to  Trans- 
portation. 

Publications  of  the  American  Economic  Asso- 
ciation, V,  p.  333. 

HEPBURN,  A.  B. 

Artificial  Waterways  andCommercial  Development. 
New  York,  Macmillan,  1909. 

HILL,  JAMES  J. 

The  Solution  of  the   Transportation  Problem  of 

the  United  States. 
St.  Louis,  issued  by  the  Lakes-to-the-Gulf  Deep 

Waterway  Association,  1906. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I9i 

House    Documents,    syth    Congress,    2nd    Sess., 

Vol.  92,  No.  421;  Vol.  93,  No.  439. 
Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1903. 
House     Executive    Documents,    5Oth    Cong.,    1st 

Sess.,  V,  p.  2145. 
House  Executive  Documents,  No.  16,  4oth  Cong., 

ist  Session. 

House  Executive  Douments,  5ist  Cong.,  2nd  Ses- 
sion, V. 

House  Reports,  No.  263,  59th  Cong.,  ist  Session. 
HULBERT,  A.  B. 

Great  American  Canals  (Vols.  XIII  and  XIV  of 
Historic  Highways).     Cleveland,  Ohio,  A.  H. 
Clark  Company,  1904. 
The  Ohio  River;  A  Course  of  Empire. 
New  York,  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  1906. 
HUNTINGTON,  C.  C,  and  MCCLELLAND,  C.  P. 
History  of  the  Ohio  Canals. 
Columbus,  Ohio,  Ohio  State  Archaeological  and 

Historical  Society,  1905. 
HYDE,  WILLIAM,  and  HOWARD  L.  CONRAD. 

Encyclopedia  of  the  History  of  St.  Louis,  4  vols. 
New  York,  Louisville,  St.  Louis,  The  Southern 
History  Company,  Haldeman,  Conrad  &  Co., 
1899. 
ILLINOIS  AND  MICHIGAN  CANAL 

Documents. 
Boston,  Samuel  N.  Dickinson,  1844. 

See  also  Annual  Reports,  Manuscripts,  Maps, 
Proceedings,  Records,  Reports,  Toll  Books. 
Illinois  House  Journals,   1834-1903. 

Vandalia,  1818-1838;  Springfield,  1838-. 


i92  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Illinois  Senate  Journals,   1826,   1834-1903. 
Vandalia,  1818-1838;  Springfield,  1838-. 
Illinois  Intelligencer,  1822-1826. 

Vandalia,  1822-1826. 

Illinois  Waterway  Report  by  the  Internal  Improve- 
ment Commission  of  Illinois. 
Springfield,  Illinois  State  Journal  Co.,  State 
Printers,  1909. 

JAMES,  EDMUND  J. 

The  Canal  and  the  Railway. 
Publications  of  the  American  Economic  Asso- 
ciation, V,  p.  282. 

JOHNSON,  EMORY  R. 

American  Railway  Transportation. 

New  York,  D.  Appleton  &  Company,  1904. 

Inland    Waterways,    Their    Relation    to    Trans- 
portation. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Politi- 
cal and  Social   Science,  supplement,  Septem- 
ber, 1893. 
Philadelphia,  1893. 

Ocean  and  Inland  Water  Transportation. 

New  York,  D.  Appleton  &  Company,  1906. 

JONES,  ALEXANDER  J. 

The  Chicago  Drainage  Canal  and  Its  Forbear, 
the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal. 
Publication  No.   n,  Illinois  State  Historical 
Library,  p.  153. 
JONES,  LAWRENCE  M. 

The  Improvement  of  the  Missouri  River  and  Its 
Usefulness  as  a  Traffic  Route. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  i93 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 

&  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  178. 
Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Illinois 

of  1870. 

Springfield,  State  Journal  Printing  Office,  1870. 
Journal   of  the    Proceedings    of  the    Southwestern 

Convention.     Memphis,  Tenn.,   1845. 

KlLBURN,  J. 

Public  Documents  Concerning  Ohio  Canals. 
Columbus,  I.  N.  Whiting,  1832. 
Laws  of  Illinois,  1818-1915. 
Vandalia,  1818-1838. 
Springfield,  1838-. 
MACDONALD,  WILLIAM. 

Jacksonian  Democracy.     (The  American  Nation, 
XV.) 

New  York,  Harper  and  Brothers,  1906. 
MCMASTER,  JOHN  BACH. 

A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  from 
the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War.     6  vols. 
New  York,  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1883-1906. 
Manuscript  Reports  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  1845- 

1871. 

In  Canal  Office,  Lockport,  Illinois. 
Maps. 

Collections  of  maps  in  the  Wisconsin  Historical 
Library  and  in  the  Chicago  Historical  Library, 
illustrative  of  the  development  of  Illinois  at 
various  periods  discussed  in  this  dissertation. 
Memorial  to  the  Fifty-Second  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  Favor  of  the  Improvement  of  the 
Navigation  of  the  Mississippi  River. 


194  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

St.  Louis,  R.  P.  Studley  &  Co.,  Printers,  1892. 
Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  10  vols. 
Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1896- 

1899. 
MITCHELL,  A.  S. 

Compendium  of  the  Internal  Improvements  of  the 
United  States. 

Philadelphia,  Mitchell  &  Hinman,  1835. 
MORSE,  JEDEDIAH. 

The  American  Universal  Geography.  6th  ed.  2  vols. 
Boston,  Thomas  and  Andrews,  May,  1812. 
MOSES,  JOHN. 

Illinois,  Historical  and  Statistical.     2  vols. 
Chicago,  Fergus,  1889-93. 
National  Intelligencer,  1816-1831. 

Washington,  1816-1831. 
NEWCOMB,  H.  T. 

Changes  in  the  Rate  of  Charge  for  Railroad  and 
Other  Transportation  Services. 
U.  S.  Department    of    Agriculture,   Bulletin 
No.  50,  Miscellaneous  series,  1901. 
NEWCOMB,  H.  T. 
Railway  Ecomonics. 
Philadelphia,   Railway  World   Publishing  Co., 

1898. 
NEWLANDS,  Francis  G. 

The  Use  and  Development  of  American  Waterways. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  48. 
Niles'  Weekly  Register. 
Philadelphia,  1 8 1  i-i  849. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I95 

NORTH,  E.  P. 

The  Erie  Canal  and  Transportation. 
North  American  Review,  vol.  170,  p.  121. 
NOYES,  W.  C. 

American  Railroad  Rates. 
Boston,  Little,  Brown  &  Co.,  1906. 
PARRISH,  RANDALL. 
Historic  Illinois. 

Chicago,  A.  C.  McClurg  &  Co.,  1905. 
PATTERSON,  R.  W. 

Early  Society  in  Southern  Illinois. 
Fergus  Historical  Series,  No.  14,  pp.  103-131. 
PITKIN,  TIMOTHY. 

Statistical  View  of  the  United  States. 
New  York,  James  Eastburn  &  Co.,  1817. 
POOLEY,  WILLIAM  VIPOND. 

The  Settlement  of  Illinois  from  1830  to  1850. 
Madison,  Wisconsin,  University  of  Wisconsin, 

1908. 
POOR,  H.  V. 

Sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Internal  Im- 
provements, in  Poor's  Manual  of  Railroads  in 
the  United  States  for  1881. 
New  York,  H.  V.  and  H.  W.  Poor,  1881. 
PRENTICE,  E.  PARMALEE. 

The  Federal  Power  over  Carriers  and  Corporations. 
New  York,  The  Macmillan  Company,  1907. 
Proceedings  of  the  Convention  for  the  Improvement 
of  the  Mississippi  River  and  Its  Navigable 
Tributaries. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  1884. 


i96  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Proceedings  of  the  National  Rivers   and  Harbors 
Congress    (1906). 
Washington,  D.  C,  1906. 

Proceedings  of  the  National  Ship- Canal  Convention. 
Chicago,    Tribune    Company's    Book    &    Job 
Printing  Office,  1863. 

Proceedings  of  the  Mississippi  River  Improvement 
Convention. 
St.  Louis,  Great  Western  Printing  Co.,  1881. 

Proceedings  of  the  St.  Louis  Chamber  of  Commerce 
in  Relation  to  the  Improvement  of  the  Naviga- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  and  Its  Principal  Tribu- 
taries and  the  St.  Louis  Harbor,  with  a  State- 
ment Submitted  by  A.  B.  Chambers,  to  the 
Chamber. 

St.  Louis,  Printed  by  Chambers  &  Knapp, 
Republican  Office,   1842. 

Proceedings  of  the  Convention  for  the  Improvement 
of  the  Mississippi  River  and  Its  Navigable 
Tributaries  together  with  a  Brief  Memorial  to 
Congress. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  1884. 

Proceedings  of  the  Harbor  and  River  Convention, 

184.7. 
Chicago,  R.  L.  Wilson,  1847. 

Proceedings  of  the  Illinois  River  Improvement  Con- 
vention. 
Peoria,  Illinois,  1887. 

RANSDELL,  JOSEPH  E. 

Legislative  Program  Congress  Should  Adopt  for 
Improvement  of  American  Waterways. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  i97 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 

and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  36. 
REAVIS,  L.  U. 

The  Commercial  Destiny  of  the  Mississippi  F alley 

and  the  Improvement  of  Its  Great  Water  System. 

A  lecture. 

St.  Louis,  1880. 
Records  of  Sales  of  Canal  Lands  and  Lots.    In  Canal 

Office,  Lockport,  Illinois. 
REIZENSTEIN,  MILTON. 

The  Economic  History  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio 

Railroad.     Johns    Hopkins    Studies,    XV,    p. 

283. 
Reports  of  Chief  of  Engineers,  1867-1907. 

Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1867- 

1907. 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Statistics  for  the  City  of 

Chicago,  submitted  to  the  National  River  & 

Harbor  Convention,  Chicago,  June  2,  1863. 

Chicago,    Tribune    Company's    Book  &   Job 

Printing  Office,  1863. 
Report  of  the  Canal  Commissioners  of  the  State  of 

Illinois,  January  3,  1825. 

Vandalia,  Illinois :  Robert  Blackwell,  Printer, 

1825. 
Report   of  the   Main   Drainage   Committee   to   the 

Citizens'  Association  of  Chicago,   1880. 

Chicago,  Hazlitt  &  Reed,  Printers,  1880. 
Report  of  the  Sewerage  Committee  to  the  Citizens' 

Association  of  Chicago. 

Chicago,  Hazlitt  &  Reed,  Printers,  1880. 


i98  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Drainage  and  Water 
Supply    to    the    Executive    Committee    of   the 
Citizens'  Association. 
Chicago,  Geo.  K.  Hazlitt  &  Co.,  Printers,  1887. 

Report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Citizens'  Association 
on  the  Main  Drainage  and  Water  Supply  of 
Chicago. 
Chicago,  Geo.  K.  Hazlitt  &  Co.,  1885. 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Canals  of  New  York 
State,  1899. 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  Brandow  Printing  Co.,  Dept. 
Printers,  190x3. 

Report  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Commission. 
Washington,  1908. 

Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Corporations  on 
Transportation  by  Water  in  the  United  States. 
Washington,  1909. 

Report  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance  in  Rela- 
tion to  the  Illegal  Finding  of  Canal  Scrip,  etc., 
together  with  the  Minority  Reports,  February 
14,  1859. 
Springfield,  Bailhache&  Baker,  Printers,  1859. 

Report  of  the  State  Trustee  of  the  Illinois  y  Michigan 
Canal.  (Made  in  relation  to  certain  charges 
which  were  preferred  by  him  against  the 
Chief  Engineer,  and  read  at  a  meeting  of 
subscribers  to  the  loan  of  $1,600,000  held  in 
New  York  on  the  i8th  of  October,  1847,  with 
the  evidence  in  support  of  the  same). 
Chicago,  Democrat  Book  &  Job  Office,  1848. 

Report  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal.  (Re- 
port by  Swift  and  Davis  to  Baring  Brothers  & 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I99 

Co.    and   Magniac   Jardine   &   Co.,    for   the 

creditors.) 

London,  W.  Clarke,  1844. 
Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on   Transportation 

Routes  to  the  Seaboard.     Senate  Report  No. 

307,  43rd  Cong.,  ist  Sess. 

Washington,  1874. 
Report  on  Canals  of  the  United  States,  loth  census, 

1880,  Vol.  IV. 
Revised  Statutes  of  Illinois,  1845. 

Springfield,  Wm.  Walters,  Printer  for  Walters 

&  Weber,  Public  Printer,   1845. 
REYNOLDS,  JOHN. 
History  of  Illinois. 
Chicago,  Fergus,  1879. 

RlNGWALT,  J.  L. 

Development  of   Transportation  Systems  in  the 
United  States. 

Philadelphia,  Published  by  the  Author.     Rail- 
way World  Office,  1888. 
ROOSEVELT,  THEODORE. 

Our  National  Inland  Waterways  Policy. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 

and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  I. 
SCHARF,  J.  THOMAS. 

History  of  Saint  Louis  City  and  County.     2  vols. 
Philadelphia,  Louis  H.  Everts  &  Co.,  1883. 
SEMPLE,  ELLEN  C. 

American  History  and  Its  Geographic  Conditions. 
Boston  &  New  York,  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co., 
1903. 


200  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Senate  Executive  Documents,  No.  16,  34th  Cong., 

3rd  Session. 
Senate    Report  No.    307,   43rd    Cong.,    ist  Sess., 

Part  I,  p.  233. 
SHELDON,  THEODORE. 

Land  Registration  in  Illinois. 
Chicago,  Callaghan  &  Co.,  1901. 
STERNS,  W.  P. 

Foreign  Commerce  of  the  United  States. 
Journal  of  Political  Economy,  VIII,  pp.  34-57, 

452-490. 
STUVE,  BERNARD. 

The  State  Internal  Improvement  Venture  of  1837- 

3*. 

Publication    No.  7,   Illinois  State  Historical 
Library,  p.  114. 
SWIFT,  CAPTAIN  W.  H. 

Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal.     A  circular  to  the 
subscribers  to  the  loan  of  $1,600,000  for  the 
completion  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal, 
dated  January  2,  1849. 
Towers,  Printer,  1849. 
Correspondence.    In  Chicago  Historical  Society. 

SWITZLER,  W.  F. 

Report  on  Internal  Commerce  of  the  United  States. 
Washington,  D.  C.,  Bureau  of  Statistics,  1888. 
Also  published  as  House  Executive  Document 

No.  6,  5oth  Cong.,  ist  Sess.,  Vol.  20. 
TANNER,  H.  S. 

A  Description  of  the  Canals  and  Railroads  in  the 
United  States. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  201 

New  York,  T.  R.  Tanner  &  J.  Disturnell, 

1840. 
TAYLOR,    ROBERT  S.    (of   the   Mississippi    River 

Commission). 

The  Improvement  of  the  Mississippi  River.  An 
address  delivered  at  St.  Louis,  January  26, 
1884. 

Reprinted  by  the  Mississippi  River  Improve- 
ment Committee  of  the  Merchants'  Exchange 
of  St.  Louis,  1884. 
THAYER,  WALTER. 

Transportation  on  the  Great  Lakes. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 

and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  126. 
Toll  Books  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal, 
1848-1906. 

In  Canal  Office,  Lockport,  Illinois. 
TUNELL,  George  G. 

The  Diversion  of  the  Flour  and  Grain  Traffic  from 
the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Railroads. 
Journal  of  Political  Economy,  V,  p.  340. 
Report  on  Lake  Commerce. 
Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor,  Bureau 

of  Statistics,  Washington,  1895. 
Transportation  on  the  Great  Lakes. 
Journal  of  Political  Economy,  IV,  p.  332. 
TURNER,  FREDERICK  JACKSON. 

Rise  of  the  New  West.  (The  American  Nation, 
vol.  14.) 

New  York,  Harper  &  Brothers,  1906. 
United  States  Census,  1830-1900. 
Washington,  Government  Printers,  1832-1904. 


202  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  36  vols.,  Washing- 
ton, 1848-1908. 

VANCE,  JOHN  L. 

The  Improvement  of  the  Ohio  River. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  139. 

WAITE,  O.  T. 

Fox  y  Wisconsin  River  Improvement. 
University  of  Wisconsin  Thesis,  1892. 

WALKER,  FRANCIS  A. 
Making  of  the  Nation. 
New  York,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1898. 

WARD,  G.  W. 

Early  Development  of  the   Chesapeake  &  Ohio 
Canal    Project. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  XVII,  p. 
522. 

WAY,  R.  B. 

Mississippi  Improvements  and  Traffic  Prospects. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  XXXI,  p.  146. 

WEBSTER,  W.  C. 

A  General  History  of  Commerce. 

Boston,  Ginn  &  Company,  1903. 
WENTWORTH,  JOHN. 

Early  Chicago. 

Fergus  Historical  Series,  Nos.  7  and  8. 
WHEELER,  HENRY  G. 

History  of  Congress,  Vol.  II. 

New  York,  Harper  &  Brothers,  1848. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  203 

WlNDEN,  JULIUS. 

Influence  of  the  Erie  Canal  upon  the  Population 
along  Its  Course. 

University  of  Wisconsin  Thesis,  1900. 
WINSOR,  JUSTIN. 

Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America. 
Boston  &  New  York,  Houghton,  Mifflin  and 

Company,  1884-89. 
The  Westward  Movement. 
Boston  and  New  York:   Houghton,  Miffln  and 

Co.,  1897. 
WRIGHT,  JOHN  P. 

Chicago:   Past,  Present,  Future. 
Chicago,  sold  by  the  Western  News  Co.,  1868. 
YOUNG,  J.  S. 

A    Political    and    Constitutional    Study    of   the 
Cumberland  Road. 
Chicago  Press,  1904. 


INDEX 


Abandonment  of  I.  &  M.  from  Lock- 
port  to  Chicago,  76,  84,  152. 

Adams  County  population,  1855, 
107. 

Alexander,    Samuel,    commissioner, 

!3- 

Alton  Spectator,  26. 
Apple  Creek,  Dam  at,  127. 
Appointments,  88  ft  sea. 
Appraisal  of  canal  lands.  See  Canal 

lands. 
Appropriations  for  I.  &  M.,  74;  1903, 

unconstitutional,  75. 
Archer,  William  B.,  commissioner, 

Arnold,  Isaac,  N.,  134. 

Assets  of  I.  &  M.    See  Finances  of 

I.  &M. 
Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry., 

5,  122. 

Ausogonaskki  reservoir,  21. 

Baker,  Edward  D.,  129. 

Bancroft,  George,  secretary  of  the 

navy,  126,  127. 
Bank  of  Illinois  notes  accepted  for 

canal  bills,  72. 
Bank  situation  in  1837,  42  et  seq.; 

1848-63,  64. 

Baring  Bros.  &  Co.,  57,  59. 
Barnett,  George,  50. 
Bates,  Edward,  130,  133,  134. 
Beardstown,  113. 
Beardstown  Chronicle,  26. 
Beef  shipped,  1842-47,99;  1905, 115. 
Bell's  Island,  power  plant,  147. 
Benton,  Thomas  H.,  130. 
Benyaurd,  Maj.  W.  H.  H.,  140. 
Bibliography,  183-202. 
Big  Dresden  Island,  power  plant, 

147. 
Blair,  Francis  P.,  scheme  for  deep 

waterway,  133. 
Board  of  Commissioners.    See  I.  & 

M.  canal:   Commissions. 
Board  of  Trustees.    See  I.  &  M. 

canal:  Trustees. 


Boats  on  canal,  99,  100,  105,  176 
et  seq.;  canal  boats,  75,  105; 
lake  boats,  150;  packets,  105,  in; 
steamboats,  105,  135. 

Bond,  GOT.  Shadrach,  10,  n,  15. 

Bonds,  Canal,  31,  41;  interest  on, 
49; 

sales,  68;  before  1840,  46,  47; 
1841,51;  1844,59; 

sold   to   contractors,    50.     See 
also  Loans,  canal. 

Bonds,  State,  51,  52,  146. 

Bonus  Bill,  9. 

Borner,  William,  1 19. 

Brandon's  Road,  power  plant,  147. 

Bridgeport,  pumping  station,  74, 99; 
re-establishment,  144, 

Bronson,  Arthur,  56. 

Brown,  Erasmus,  commissioner,  13, 
X5- 

Brown,  Henry,  quoted,  82. 

Bucklin,  James  M.,  chief  engineer, 
estimate  of  cost,  21,  35. 

Buffalo,  23,  loo,  103. 

Bureau  Junction,  no,  121. 

Bureau  Valley  R.  R.  merged  with 
C.  &R.  I.,  no,  in. 

Burke,  Richard  E.,  and  1903  appro- 
priation, 74. 

Burke  vs.  Snively  et  a!.,  75. 

Butler,  Wright  &  Webster's  addi- 
tion to  Chicago,  95. 

Butterfield,  Justin,  56. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  9,  IO,  18. 

Calumet  feeder,  62,  99. 

Calumet  harbor,  140,  141. 

Calumet  River,  5;  water  from, 
21. 

Campaign  of  1834,  24. 

Canada,  laborers  from,  38. 

Canal  Board.  Ste  I.  &  M.  canal: 
Commissions. 

Canal  boats.   See  Boats  on  canal. 

Canal  Commissioners.  See  I.  ft 
M.  canal:  commissions. 

Canal  financiering,  30. 


205 


206 


INDEX 


Canal  lands:  appraisal,  68,  77,  79; 
basis  for  loans,  30;  certificates 
of  purchase  negotiable,  81;  for- 
feiture, 81;  given  for  public 
buildings,  82;  grants,  12,  18,  34; 
leased,  83;  ninety-foot  strip,  73, 
83,  84,  85,  90;  obligations  can- 
celled, 81;  occupation  before  sale, 
82;  payment,  50,  76,  77,  (in 
scrip),  53,  71;  policy,  76  et  seq.; 
rental,  82,  83,  (1898-1915),  85; 
reserved,  78;  residence  on,  68; 

sale  of,  II  et  seq.,  90;  amount, 
1830,  19;  1840,  50;  authorized, 
49;  begun,  1 8;  conditions,  56; 
failure,  76  et  seq.;  in  Chicago,  36; 
more  favorable,  41;  proceeds,  46; 
restricted,  83;  statistics,  79-80; 

speculation,  94  et  seq.;  squat- 
ters, 89;  value,  33,  34,  41,  58,  76, 
77,  80, 95,  (inflated)  94,  (variable) 
96. 

Canal  scrip,  50,  53,  63;  cancellation, 
89;  depreciation,  71;  issued,  70; 
not  cancelled,  88;  paid  for  labor, 
71;  scandal,  88. 

Canal  stock.  See  Finances  of  I.  & 
M. 

Canal  vs.  railroads.  See  Railroads 
vs.  canal. 

Canalport,  celebration,  1836,  37. 

Carlin,  Gov.  Thomas,  47,  48,  50. 

Cass,  Lewis,  130. 

Certificates  of  purchase.  See  Canal 
lands. 

Cession  of  canal  to  U.  S.,  139. 

Chicago:  bonds  sold  in,  48;  canal 
begun  near,  36;  canal  lands,  33, 
34,  41,  95;  commerce,  early,  22 
et  seq.;  exports,  1848-1854,  107, 
(1851)  105,  108;  freight  rates  to, 
121  et  seq.;  grain  exports,  120, 
(1851)  107;  growth,  22,  155, 
(1830-1855)  106,  107; 

harbor,  150;  congested,  140; 
improvement,  129; 

imports,  98,  107,  (1851)  107, 
108,  (1905)  114;  included  in 
Illinois,  1818,  10;  land  values 
increase,  1830-34,  94;  market, 
loo;  original  town  limits,  94; 
panic  of  1837,  95;  physiographic 
characteristics,  5;  platting,  18,  93; 
population,  1829,  93,  (1840,  1845, 
1850)  97,  (1848)  54,  107,  (1870- 
80)  144;  public  lands  sold  before 


1847,  97;  railroads,  no,  in; 
sanitary  problem,  143,  144;  takes 
St.  Louis  trade,  102;  terminal 
facilities,  117;  trade  affected  by 
canal,  102  et  seq.;  transfer  point, 
94,  135;  transportation  to  Illinois 
River,  22;  vessels  arriving,  23; 
wheat  shipped,  84. 

Chicago  and  Alton  R.  R.,  5,  122. 

Chicago  and  Rock  Island  R.  R., 
92;  charter  granted,  109;  con- 
struction begun,  1852,  no;  corn 
shipped,  112;  extension,  113; 
opened,  1854,  no;  traffic,  113. 

Chicago  Branch  of  State  Bank,  42, 
43;  held  redeemed  canal  scrip,  88. 

Chicago  Democrat  in  campaign  for 
canal,  26. 

Chicago  Drainage  Canal,  89,  144 
etseq.,  149^  seq.;  effect  on  rentals 
of  canal  land,  84;  traffic  trans- 
ferred to,  76. 

Chicago.  Harbor  and  River  Con- 
vention, 1847,  130. 

Chicago,  Lake.   See  Lake  Chicago. 

Chicago.  National  Ship-canal  Con- 
vention, 1863,  134,  136. 

Chicago,  Pittsburg  &  Ft.  Wayne 
R.  R.,  119. 

Chicago  portage,  5,  9,  154. 

Chicago  River,  4,  9,  140,  145;  con- 
gested, 140;  improvement,  39; 
South  Branch,  5,  13,  144;  water 
pumped  from,  99. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry., 
118,  121,  122. 

Chicago  Sanitary  District,  144,  146, 

lS*t  IS3- 

Chicago  to  Lockport  section  aban- 
doned, 76. 

Churches,  land  for,  82,  83. 

City  lots.   See  Canal  lands. 

Civil  War,  effect  on  navigation  im- 
provement, 133,  134,  135. 

Claim  investigators,  68. 

Claims  against  canal  investigated, 


Clark,  James  L.,  119. 

Clay,  Henry,  130. 

Coal  shipped,  118. 

Coffee  imported,  104. 

Coles,  Edward,  15,  32,  33;  appointed 
to  negotiate  loan,  32;  proposes 
change  in  charter,  17;  proposes 
finance  plan,  14. 

Coif  ax,  Vice  Pres.  Schuyler,  134. 


INDEX 


207 


Commissioners,  Canal.    See  I.  &  M. 

Canal:    Commissions. 
Committee  on   Roads   and   Canals 

reports  favorably,  28. 
Commodities    transported,    166    et 

seq.,  171. 
Compensation  to  canal  by  railroad, 

109. 
Completion  of  I.  &  M.  required  in 

three  years,  62. 
Congress  and  deep  waterways,  133 

ft  seq. 
Congressional   action  on   I.   &  M. 

See  Federal  aid. 
Constitution  of  1870  and  canal  im- 

provement, 74. 
Construction  of  I.  &  M.  begun,  36, 

37,  94;  suspended,  53. 
Contractors:   burdens  of,  44;  forfeit 

bonds,  37; 

paid,  52,  535  by  interest-bear- 

ing check,  49;  in  scrip,  71;  for 

damages  sustained,  53; 

responsibility  of,  70;  take  loan, 

47.  S°- 
Contracts,   36,  38,  44;  abandoned, 

44,  52;  for  Western  division,  37; 

let,   60,   (at  less  then  estimated 

cost)  61,  (by  commissioners)  69; 

widely  advertised,  70. 
Cook,  Daniel  P.,  12,  14,  16. 
Cook  County,  Mass  meeting  in,  27; 

population  (1835)  96,  (1855)  107. 
Copperas  Creek,  Dam  at,  127,  137; 

lock  at,  75,  137,  170;  tolls  at,  87. 
Corn  shipped,  102,  103,  107;  (1851) 

101;    (1866-67)     112;    (1873-74) 


Cost  of  I.  &  M.,  13,  44  et  seq.,  81; 
(1848-1915)  161  et  seq.;  (1905) 
124;  (to  1915)  124;  (total)  62. 

Estimated,  21,  35;  by  Bucklin, 
35;  by  House  committee,  39;  in 
detail,  39;  for  completion,  55; 
shallow  cut,  55,  121;  See  also 
Expenditures  for  I.  &  M. 

Creditors  given  negotiable  orders, 
53;  report  to,  March  i,  1844, 
57;  take  bonds,  59. 

Davis,  John,  influence  for  loan,  59; 
investigates  canal,  57. 

Dayton,  end  of  canal  feeder,  62. 

Debt,  State,  54,  et  seq.;  interest  on, 
52;  interest  payment  suspended, 
78;  internal  improvement  debt, 
1842,  51. 


Debts  of  I.  &  M.   See  Finances. 

Deed  of  trust,  56,  78. 

Deeds,  unrecorded,  89. 

Deep  Waterway  to  the  Gulf,  133 
et  seq.,  145  et  seq.  See  also  Ship- 
canal. 

Deficit  in  canal  funds,  48,  49;  in 
state  treasury,  15. 

Delafield,  J.,  32,  46,  47. 

Democratic  leaders  opposed  to 
river  improvement,  131. 

Depth  of  canal.   See  Dimensions. 

Des  Moines,  Iowa,  112. 

Des  Plaines  River,  4,  5,  9,  139,  143, 
145;  crossed  by  I.  &  M.,  84; 
flowage  rights  leased,  90;  im- 
provement, 140,  146-7;  locks  and 
dams,  39,  135;  survey,  1887,  140; 
unsanitary,  144;  water  from,  21. 

Des  Plaines  valley,  13;  floods,  37. 

Digging.   See  Construction. 

Dimensions  of  I.  &  M.,  16,  25,  26, 
28,  35,  126  et  seq.,  134,  135;  of 
proposed  ship  canal,  133. 

Divisions  of  I.  &  M.,  35. 

Dixon,  111.,  142. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  129. 

Drainage  Canal.  See  Chicago  Drain- 
age Canal. 

Dresden,  111.,  44. 

Dresden  Heights  dam  lease,  147; 
legislative  investigation,  89,  90. 

Dresden  level,  62. 

Drought  in  Illinois,  1856,  131. 

Dry  goods,  1841-52,  104. 

Duffle  &  Co.,  47. 

Duncan,  GOP.  Joseph,  15,  19,  31,  33, 
34,  35,  43,  44,  47;  and  deep  canal 
project,  25;  negotiates  loan,  41. 

Dunlap,  Thomas,  and  million  dollar 
loan,  47. 

Dunn,  Charles,  Commissioner,  18. 

Earnings.  See  Revenue. 

Eastern  merchandise  on  canal,  100. 

Economic  development  due  to 
I.  &  M.,  155,  158. 

Economy  Light  and  Power  Co., 
lessee,  84,  89. 

Edwards,  Ninian,  8. 

Efficiency  of  I.  &  M.  impaired,  75, 
88  et  seq. 

Eight-foot  channel.  See  Shallow 
waterway. 

Electric  power  development,  147, 
148. 

Elevators,  119;  on  canal  land,  83. 


208 


INDEX 


Employees   of   I.    &   M.,    68,    69; 

changed  with  party  changes,  88. 
" Enabling  act,"  n. 
Ericsson,  John,  133. 
Erie  canal,  6,  7,  n,  13,  17,  30,  100; 
and  Great  Lakes  route,  23;  com- 
petition with  railroads,  109;  effect 
on  I.  &  M.,  154-156;  enlargement, 
152,  156;  inadequate,  35. 

Estimates  of  construction.  See 
Cost  estimated. 

European  financiers  and  canal  loan, 
32;  and  American  internal  im- 
provement bonds,  58,  59. 

Expenditures  for  I.  &  M.,  44,  46, 
62;  (1839-41)  50-51;  (1848-1915) 
161  et  seq.;  (1860-1915)  124; 
(1905)  87;  charged  against  ap- 
propriations for  Illinois  River, 
75;  have  exceeded  tolls  since 
I879»  73.  "4;  monthly,  48;  more 
than  expected,  65. 

Exports,  I  et  seq.,  98,  105. 

Farm  products  transported  by  canal, 
100. 

Federal  aid  for  I.  &  M.,  4;  granted, 
18;  not  obtained,  10,  II,  14,  19, 
20,28,  132,  133,  135,  136. 

Federal  aid  for  Illinois  River  im- 
provement sought,  1 1 6. 

Feeders  of  canal,  62. 

Finances  of  I.  &  M.,  n,  14,  16,  19, 
30  et  seq.;  assets,  44,  58,  63 ;  banks, 
42  et  seq.; 

debt,  58,  62,  63;  increasing,  77; 
paid,  64;  1871,  73;  by  land  sales, 
79J 

five  per  cent  bonds,  31;  interest 
paid,  63;  specie  payments,  72; 
stock,  31;  surplus,  65,  73;  un- 
sound, 70,  71;  See  also  Expendi- 
tures for  I.  &  M.;  Loans;  "Wild 
Cat"  currency. 

Financial  crises  in  Illinois,  155;  in 
country  (1842)  54. 

Fisk,  Charles  B.,  60. 

Florence,  111.,  Dam  at,  127. 

Flour  shipped,  83;  (1842-47)  99; 
(1905)  84,  114. 

Ford,  Goo.  Thomas,  47,  57,  126. 

Foreign  creditors.   See  Creditors. 

Forefeiture  of  land.  See  Canal 
lands:  forfeiture. 

Fourteen-foot   channel.     See   Deep 

^  water-way;  also  Ship  canal. 

Fox  River,  107,  154;  feeder,  62. 


Freight,  competition  for,  in,  112; 
decrease,  86;  pro-rating  of,  118 
et  seq.; 

rates,  103,  no,  112,  120,  et 
seq.;  Chicago  to  N.  Y.,  120;  effect 
of  competition  on,  120  et  seq.;  in- 
creased, 123-4;  winter,  121,  123. 

traffic,  loss  of,  to  be  compensat- 
ed by  railroad,  109-110. 

Frontier,  Advance  of,  30. 

Fry,  Jacob,  commissioner,  40;  trus- 
tee, 60,  67. 

Fulton  County,  93. 

Galena,  1829,  93. 

Galena  Advertiser  opposed  canal,  26. 

Galena  &  Chicago  Union  R.  R.,  107. 

Gallatin,  Secretary,  scheme  for  im- 
proving transportation,  4,  6. 

General  Assembly  of  Illinois,  2d,  II. 

"General  Fry,"  first  boat  on  Canal, 

"General  Thornton,"  canal  boat,  99. 

Geneseo,  111.,  rate  to,  122. 

Genessee  country,  6. 

Geology  of  Chicago  plain,  5. 

Gooding,  William,  60,  134,  137; 
chief  engineer,  35,  55;  re-examin- 
ation of  canal,  136. 

Graham,  R.,  8,  9. 

Grain,  exports,  107;  freight  rates, 
121,  123,  124;  pro-rating,  118; 
shipped,  119-20;  shipping  rules, 
1 20. 

Grand  Island,  Dam  at,  127. 

Gratiot,  Gen.  Charles,  favored  canal, 
27,  28. 

Great  Lakes,  Connection  with  Mis- 
sissippi advocated,  4,  128, 133,  154. 

Great  Lakes  route,  2,  6,  23. 

Great  Lakes  to  Gulf  Waterway. 
See  Lakes  to  Gulf  Waterway. 

Great  Western  Cereal  Co.,  of  Joliet, 
lessee,  84. 

Griswold,  Harold  F.,  lessee,  89. 

Grocery  business,  St.  Louis,  104. 

Gulf  of  Mexico,  waterway  to,  4,  6. 

Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  6. 

Gulf  trade,  157. 

Gun-boats  for  Great  Lakes,  133. 

Hamilton,  William  S.,  15. 

Hanbury,  Maj.  Thos.  H.,  scheme 
for  improved  waterway,  140. 

Harbor  and  River  convention,  1847. 
See  Chicago. 

Hardware  business,  St.  Louis,  104. 

Hennepin,  111.,  141. 


INDEX 


209 


Hennepin  Canal.  See  Illinois  and 
Mississippi  Canal. 

Henry,  111.,  121;  dam  at,  127,  137; 
lock  at,  75,  137,  170;  tolls  at,  87. 

Hepburn  Act,  120,  123. 

Holman,  William  S.,  133. 

Honesty  of  management,  70. 

House  Committee  on  Internal  Im- 
provements attack  plan,  38. 

Hubbard,  Gurdon  S.,  Commissioner, 

Hubbard,  William  A.,  149. 

Ice  leases,  1898-1915,  86. 

Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal:  agents, 
1915,  164,  165; 

commissions,  12-13,  J8,  22,  66, 
91;  abolished,  21;  appointed,  34, 
40;  chosen  biennially,  67;  com- 
position of,  67;  functions,  69;  land 
policy,  76  ft  seq.;  legal  status,  67; 
made  elective,  1837,  40;  reor- 
ganized, 1836,  34;  1837,  39;  take 
charge  of  section  of  Illinois  River, 
137;  third,  appointed,  29;  upheld 
by  engineer's  report,  40. 

officers,  1915,  164,  165;  super- 
intendent's report,  1860,  132; 
treasurer's  report,  1837,  42; 
trustees,  56,  60,  62,  67,  (final 
report,  1871)  64,  73. 

Illinois  and  Mississippi  Canal,  139 
et  seq.,  178. 

Illinois,  Bank  of.  See  Bank  of 
Illinois. 

Illinois  River,  5;  appropriations 
for,  used  for  I.  &  M.,  75;  channel 
inadequate,  126;  condition  ham- 
pered canal  traffic,  92;  connection 
with  Lake  Michigan  advocated, 
4;  depth  of  water,  1860,  132; 
federal  appropriation  granted, 
1852,  131,  (not  granted,  1846) 
129,  131; 

improvement,  137;  cost  esti- 
mated, 140;  dropped  by  state, 
1877,  137-8;  needed,  22,  25; 
projected,  133;  1905,  145;  by 
federal  govt.,  152;  recommended 
by  Lydecker,  138; 

kept  open  by  private  company, 
131,  132;  La  Salle  to  Copperas 
Creek  section,  75;  locks  and  dams, 
127,  135,  137,  138;  low  water, 
loo,  101,  132;  Mo  wry  report, 
126  et  seq.;  population  along,  106; 
slack-water  navigation,  139; 


steamboats,  24,  137;  survey, 
1866,  135,  (ordered  by  Congress, 
1887)  140;  trade,  102,  103; 
traffic,  113,  (given  to  railroads) 
n6;unnavigable,  115;  unsanitary, 
144. 

Illinois  River  Improvement  Co., 
131-32. 

Illinois  River  Improvement  Con- 
vention. See  Peoria. 

Illinois,  State  Bank  of.  See  State 
Bank  of  Illinois. 

Illinois  Waterway  Commission,  148. 

Importance  of  I.  &  M.,  7,  22  ft  seq., 
4°,  54- 

Importation  to  interior,  3. 

Income.   See  Revenue. 

Incorporation  of  I.  &  M.,  15;  failed, 
16. 

Indian  treaty,  1816,  8. 

Influence  of  I.  &  M.,  92  ft  seq.,  155 
et  seq. 

Interest  on  canal  debt.  See  Finances 
of  I.  &  M.:  interest. 

Interest  on  state  debt.  See  Debt, 
State. 

Interest  rates  compared,  32. 

"Interest  tax,"  52,  59,  60. 

Internal  Improvement  Commission 
of  Illinois,  146. 

Internal  improvement  proposed, 
3,  9,  129  et  seq.;  for  defense  9,  IO. 

Iowa,  railroad  traffic  from,  13. 

Jayne,  Gershom,  commissioner,  18. 

Joliet,  119,  134,  139,  140,  141,  147, 
150,  170;  dam,  84;  freight  rates, 
120;  railroad,  1853,  in;  un- 
recorded deeds,  89;  water  power 
leases,  83. 

Joliet,  Lake.   See  Lake  Joliet. 

Jones,  Noble,  1 19. 

Jones,  Judge  Norman  S.,  149. 

Kampsville  lock,  138;  lowered,  146. 

Kane  County,  population,  1855,  107. 

Kankakee  River,  147;  feeder,  62. 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  149. 

Kellogg,  Iowa,  113. 

Labor  on  I.  &  M.:  advertised  for  in 
East,  38;  Canadian,  38;  paid  in 
canal  scrip,  71;  scarcity,  37,  38; 
wages,  38,  (high)  36. 

Laborers,  houses  built  for,  37; 
sickness  of,  62. 

LaGrange,  Dam,  127;  lowered,  146. 

LaGrange  lock,  138. 

Lake  Chicago,  5. 


210 


INDEX 


Lake  Joliet,  proposed  terminus,  39. 

Lake  Shore  &  Mich.  Southern  R. 
R.,  118,  119. 

Lake  steamers  on  I.  &  M.  Set 
Steamboat  canal;  Boats  on  canal. 

Lakes-to-the-Gulf  Waterway,  39, 
145  et  seq.,  148,  152  et  seq.;  im- 
portance, 156-58;  relation  to  I. 
&  M.,  152,  158. 

Land  grants.  See  Canal  lands. 

Land  sales.   See  Canal  lands. 

Land  speculators,  71. 

Land  value,  advancing,  33,  94;  see 
also  Canal  lands:  value. 

LaSalle,  111.,  75,  99,  105,  109,  in, 
121,  126,  132,  134,  139,  140,  142, 
143,  170;  freight  rates,  124;  pro- 
posed western  terminus,  24; 
steamboat  basin,  37,  74;  transfer 
of  freight,  1 1 6. 

LaSalle  County,  Mass  meeting  in, 
27;  population,  1835,  96-7,  1855, 
107. 

Lawrence,  Abbott,  57. 

Leases  of  canal  land.  Set  Canal 
land,  leased. 

Leavitt,  David,  trustee,  60,  67. 

Legislation  affecting  I.  &  M.: 
March  30,  1822,  12;  Feb.  14,  1823, 
12,  67;  Jan.  17,  1825,  15;  March 
2,  1827,  17;  Jan.  22,  1829,  18,  67; 
Jan.  5,  1831,  19;  March  i,  1833, 
22,  66;  Feb.  10,  1835,  29,  31,  66, 
67;  Jan.  9,  1836,  34,  41,  45,  76; 
March  2,  1837,  40,  45,  67;  July 
21,  1837,  72;  Feb.  26,  1839,  76, 
77;  Feb.  i,  1840,  49,  78;  Feb.  27, 
1841,  81;  Feb.  21,  1843,  53,  55, 
56,  60,  62,  83;  March  2,  1843,  53, 
66;  Feb.  25,  1845,  82;  March  I, 
1845,  60;  Feb.  25,  1847,  83;  Feb. 
7,  1851,  109;  Feb.  16,  1865,  143; 
June  23,  1866,  135;  Feb.  28,  1867, 
137;  June  14,  1880,  138;  April  28, 
1882,  139;  June  13,  1902,  145; 
Oct.  16,  1907,  146. 

Load  of  canal  boat,  123. 

Loan  for  I.  &  M.:  authorized,  45, 
(1835)  3',  (1837)  42,  (1839)  46, 
(1843)  56;  negotiated,  46,  47,  59; 
unobtainable,  19,  20,  32. 

Loan  method  of  financing  canal,  30 
et  seq. 

Lockport,  135,  140,  151;  contractors 
meet,  50;  end  of  Drainage  canal, 
145;  first  boat,  99;  mills,  84; 


section  to  Chicago  abandoned,  76; 
store,  45;  water  power  leases,  83. 

Locks  in  Illinois  River.  See  Illinois 
River,  Locks. 

Locks  of  I.  &  M.  too  narrow,  143. 

London  and  canal  loan,  48. 

Long,  Major  Stephen  H.,  8,  9. 

Lumber  cheapened,  104;  freight 
rates,  121-22;  shipped,  100,  101, 
102,  104,  174. 

Lydecker,  Maj.  J.  G.,  scheme  for 
improving  Illinois  River,  138. 

Macallister  &  Stebbins,  New  York, 
52. 

McClernand,  Col.  J.  A.,  Commis- 
sioner, 40. 

Madison  County,  population,  1855, 
107. 

Magniac,  Jardine  &  Co.,  59. 

Magniac,  Smith  &  Co.,  London,  47, 
50. 

Management  of  I.  &  M.,  66  et  seq.; 
affected  by  politics,  87,  et  seq.; 
generally  honest,  70;  inefficient, 
87  et  seq.;  under  trustees,  64-65. 

Manufactured  products,  108. 

Marais  d'Osier  route,  142. 

March,  Enoch  C.,  St.  Louis  mer- 
chant, 24. 

Marseilles,  44,  123;  freight  rates  to, 
124;  rapids,  134. 

Marshall,  Capt.  W.  L.,  Report  on 
14  ft.  channel,  141,  149. 

Mass-meetings,  26,  27. 

Mattison,  GOP.  Joel,  and  scrip 
scandal,  88. 

Memphis  Convention,  1845,  128. 

Mexican  War,  effect  on  federal 
finances,  131. 

Michigan  Central  R.  R.,  120;  com- 
petition, 119. 

Middle  Division  of  I.  &  M.,  35,  44. 

Milan,  111.,  142. 

Military  importance  of  I.&  M.,  10,36. 

"Military  Tract,"  settlers  in,  93. 

Mills,  Benjamin,  opposed  canal,  26. 

Millstuffs  received,  1905,  84. 

Mississippi  River,  closed  by  war, 
133;  improvement,  128. 

Mississippi  River  Commission,  151. 

Mississippi  trade,  103,  109. 

Monroe,  Pres.  James,  10. 

Morris,  freight  rates  to,  124. 

Morton,  Joy,  favors  shallow  chan- 
nel, 149-50;  letter  to  U.  S.  en- 
gineers' office,  175  et  seq. 


INDEX 


211 


Morton  Salt  Co.,  181-182. 
Mowry,  Geo.  R.,  examines  Illinois 

River,  126  et  seq, 
National     Ship-canal     Convention. 

See  Chicago. 

Naval  forces  on  Great  Lakes,  8. 
New  Orleans,  103,  149;  market,  I, 

2,  100. 
New  York  bond  holders  favor  "  Shal- 

low cut"  plan,  56. 
New  York  financiers  and  canal  loan, 

32,41. 

New  York  prices,  23. 
Niagara  Falls,  6. 
Niks'  Register  and  I.  &  M.,  7. 
Ninety-foot  strip.   See  Canal  lands. 
Northern  Illinois  Light  and  Trac- 

tion Co.,  of  Ottawa,  84. 
Norton  &  Co.,  lessee,  84. 
Norton  Mills,  83. 
Oakley,  Charles,  57. 
Oats  shipped,  1866-7,  H2;  1905,  114. 
Officials  of  I.  &  M.   See  Illinois  and 


Og 
Ohi 


Michigan  canal. 
den,  W.  B.,  50,  131. 


Ohio  River,  highway  of  commerce, 

Opening  of  I.  &  M.,  April  19,  1848, 

62,  99. 
Ottawa:    canal  lands,   34,   41,   79, 

95;    end    of    canal    feeder,    62; 

freight  rates,  123,  124;  laid  out, 

*8,  93;  water  power  leases,  83. 
Ottawa  Hydraulic  Co.,  lessee,  84. 
Packet  service.   See  Boats  on  canal. 
Panama   Canal,    152;   influence  on 

Lakes-to-Gulf  Waterway,  157. 
Panic  of  1837,  41  et  seq.,  72,  94,  95. 
Passenger  traffic  taken  by  railroads, 

in. 

Paul,  Rene,  engineer,  13. 
"Peerless,"  The,  176,  177. 
Penny's  Slough,  142. 
Peoria,  96,  97,  in,  119,  121,  122, 

126;  growth,  104;  1829,  93;  steam- 

boats to,   24;  Illinois  River  im- 

provement convention,  140. 
Peoria  County,  97;  1855,  107. 
Philadelphia  financiers  and  canal 

loan,  32. 

Philips,  Joseph,  8,  9. 
Phoenix  Bank  of  New  York,  46. 
Pittsburgh,  104. 
Point  of  Oaks,  36. 
Politics  and  the  canal,  67,  87  et  seq.; 

campaign  of  1834,  24. 


Polk,  Pres.  James  K.,  vetoes  River 
&  Harbor  bill,  129-130. 

Population,  1837,  44;  increase  due 
to  canal,  93,  97;  in  canal  counties, 
l83°-55,  106-7;  >n  Northern  Illi- 
nois, 96;  near  Great  Lakes,  7;  on 
Ohio,  7. 

Pork  shipped,  101;  1842-47,  99; 
1905,  115. 

Portages,  9. 

Porter,  Admiral  David  D.,  136. 

Porter,  Peter  B.,  4,  6. 

Post,  Justus,  engineer,  13,  15. 

Power  plants,  146,  147. 

Preston,  J.  B.,  131,  134,  137. 

Prices,  high,  36;  1851,  105;  1836  and 
1843,  61. 

Privileges  paid  for,  1898-1915,  86. 

Property  values  depressed,  51; 
raised  by  canal,  55. 

Pro-rating  freight  charges.  See 
Freight. 

Public  buildings,  Land  for,  82. 

Public  interest  essential  to  public 
business,  91. 

Public  lands  granted  for  canal. 
See  Canal  lands. 

Pugh,  J.  H.,  fails  to  obtain  loan, 
20,  21. 

Putnam  County,  population,  97. 

Railroads  vs.  canal,  20,  21  et  seq., 
86-87,  92,  152;  competition,  92, 
93,  108  et  seq.,  116  et  seq.,  railroad 
advantages,  \i6etseq. 

Rawlings,  Gen.,  47. 

Rental  of  canal  land.  See  Canal 
lands. 

Repairs  not  made,  75. 

Repudiation  policy  advocated,  54, 
78. 

Revenue  of  I.  &  M.,  84,  101,  Apx. 
I.;  1898-1915,  85,  86;  appropria- 
tions, 74;  disbursement,  56;  in 
excess  of  expenditure,  73,  1 14;  in- 
creased, 100;  privileges,  86;  rent- 
als, 84;  sources,  03;  total  to 
1915,  124. 

Reynolds,  John,  47,  48;  negotiates 
loan,  46;  supports  railroad  plan, 
22. 

River  and  Harbor  Bill,  1846,  129; 
1847,  129;  1851,  131;  1880,  138. 

River  and  Harbor  Convention. 
See  Chicago,  Harbor  and  River 
Convention,  1847. 

Road  construction,  37. 


212 


INDEX 


through, 


Roberts,  Edmond,  Commissioner, 
18. 

Rock  Island,  109. 

Rock  Island  &  LaSalle  R.  R.  char- 
tered, 109;  rates,  123. 

Rock  Island  route,  141. 

Rock  River,  141-42. 

Rothschilds'  agents,  32. 

Routes  for  I.  &  M.,  Comparative 
cost,  13. 

Routes  to  seaboard,  i,  2. 

Ruggles,  Gen.  J.  M.,  131. 

Ryan,  Michael,  56,  57. 

"Sag,"    140,    141;   feeder 
62. 

St.  Lawrence,  Gulf  of.    Set  Gulf. 

St.  Louis,  149,  151;  affected  by 
canal,  102  et  seq.;  harbor  improve- 
ment, 129;  market,  100,  108. 

Sale  of  I.  &  M.  forbidden,  74. 

Sale  of  lands.  See  Canal  lands, 
Sale  of. 

Salt  shipped,  101,  181. 

Sangamon  County,  Circuit  Court, 
74;  grand  jury,  88. 

Sangamon  River,  93,  106,  107. 

School  fund  diversion,  14. 

Schools,  Land  for,  82. 

Scrip.   See  Canal  scrip. 

Services  of  I.  &  M.,  125,  154  et  seq. 

Settlement,  1830-55,  106,  107. 

Settlers  attracted,  82. 

"Shallow  cut"  plan,  39,  55,  62. 

Shallow  waterway  plan,  149  et  seq. 

Ship  canal,  128,  129,  132,  133,  136 
et  seq.  See  also  Steamboat  canal. 

Size  of  I.  &  M.  See  Dimensions, 
Steamboat  canal,  Ship  canal. 

Slack-water  navigation,  139. 

Slavery  agitation,  132. 

Sloo,  Thomas,  Jr.,  Commissioner, 
13- 

Smith,  Robert,  sought  appropriation 
for  Illinois  River,  129. 

Smith,  Theophilus  W.,  Commis- 
sioner, 13. 

Snively,  et  al.  vs.  Burke,  75. 

Soil  along  canal  porous,  99. 

Southwestern  Convention.  See 
Memphis. 

Specie  payments,  Suspension  of, 
42,  43,  72. 

Speculation  in  canal  land.  See 
Canal  land  speculation. 

Spring  Valley  coal  district,  118. 

Standard  load  for  canal  boat,  75. 


State  Bank  of  Illinois,  failure,  54* 
furnishes  funds,  48;  notes  ac- 
cepted for  canal  bills,  72;  sus- 
pends specie  payments,  42  et 
seq.;  took  loan,  47. 

State  bonds.   See  Bonds,  State. 

State  debt.   See  Debt,  State. 

State  guarantee  of  loan,  33,  34. 

Statistics  of  cost.   See  Cost. 

Steamboat  canal,  25,  26,  28;  See 
also  Ship  canal. 

Steamboats  on  canal.  See  Boats  on 
canal;  Ship  canal. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  133. 

Stock,  Canal.  See  Finances  of  I.  & 
M. 

Stock  yards,  Chicago,  1878-80,  144. 

Stone,  shipped,  1905,  115;  trans- 
portation, 1 1 8. 

Sturgis,  William,  57. 

Sugar  shipped,  101,  102. 

Summit  division,  35,  36,  37,  30; 
level,  lowered,  143;  water  supply 
for,  99. 

Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  75. 

Survey  for  I.  &  M.,  1824,  13. 

Swift,  Capt.  W.  H.,  investigates 
canal,  1843-4,  57»  letter  from 
Mowry,  126;  trustee,  60,  67. 

Taxation,  1841,  52;  effect  of  I.  &  M., 

Terminal  facilities,  117-118. 

Termini  of  I.  &  M.,  Lake  Joliet 
proposed,  39;  Western,  24. 

Terre  Haute,  Ind.,  24. 

Thomas,  Jesse  B.,  12. 

Thomas,  William,  General  Supt., 
119. 

Thornton,  Gen.  W.  F.,  47,  48,  50, 
131;  commissioner,  34,  40. 

Through-freight,  100,  101,  124. 

Tiskilwa,  111.,  121. 

Toledo,  Peoria  &  Western  R.  R.,  1 19 

Tolls  of  I.  &  M.,  16,  58,  85  et  sea., 
ico,  101,  170;  1848-1915,  ioi 
etseq.;  amount,  87,  114;  decreased, 
73,  114;  increased,  1860-62,  72; 
paid  in  specie,  72;  railroad  to 
canal,  no. 

Tonnage  of  I.  &  M.,  1848-1915, 
161  et  seq.;  1860-1915,  124;  1851, 
ioi  et  seq.;  1905,  84;  compara- 
tive, 84,  86-87;  decrease,  1882, 
113-115. 

Treasurer.   See  I.  &  M.  canal. 

"Tree-top  Bar,"  132. 


INDEX 


213 


Trent  affair,  133. 

Trustees.   Set  I.  &  M.  canal. 

Uncurrent  money,  72,  73. 

U.  S.  Bank,  47;  of  Philadelphia, 
Loans,  47. 

United  States  Surveyor  and  In- 
spector at  St.  Louis,  128. 

United  States  expenditures,  138; 
undertakes  Hennepin  Canal,  139. 

Unsanitary  condition  of  I.  &  M., 
144. 

Utica,  123,  145,  146,  149,  150, 
!52»  !53;  power-plant,  147. 

Vallandingham,  Clement  L.,  133. 

Valparaiso  Moraine,  5,  9. 

Value  of  lands.  See  Canal  lands, 
value. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  130. 

Vessels  at  Chicago,  23,  150. 

Vessels  lost,  1838-41,  128. 

Vicksburg,  fall  of,  opened  Missis- 
sippi, 134. 

Voorhees,  Daniel,  W.,  133. 

Wabash  and  Maumee  to  be  con- 
nected, 13. 

Wages,  38;  high,  36;  paid  in  scrip,  71. 

Wagon  transportation,  24. 

War  department  examines  region, 
8,9. 

War  of  1812  emphasizes  need  for 
canal,  8. 

War  vessels  on  canal,  135-6. 

Ward,  Thomas  H.,  57. 

Warehouses,  117;  on  canal  land,  83. 

Warnpck,  John,  15. 

Washington,  Iowa,  113. 

Water  pipe  and  sprinkling  privileges, 
1898-1915,  86. 

Water  power  of  I.  &  M.,  increased 
by  Drainage  canal,  84;  leases,  83; 


rentals,  58,  85;  to  be  sold  by  111. 
R.  Improvement  Co.,  132. 

Water  supply  for  I.  &  M.,  21;  in- 
adequate, 99,  101,  115,  123,  131, 
132;  lake  fed,  35. 

Watertown,  111.,  142. 

Waterways  proposed,  1808,  4. 

Webster,  Daniel,  130. 

Wentworth,  John,  59,  129. 

West,  Emanuel  J.,  Commissioner, 
IS- 

West,  The,  Intercourse  with  the 
East,  3  et  seq. 

Western  Division  of  I.  &  M.,  35, 

Wheat  prices,  23;  received  at  St. 
Louis,  102;  shipped,  84,  101  et 
seq.,  (1842-47)  99,  (1866-67) 
112,  (1905)  85,  114. 

Whiteside,  Gen.,  47. 

Width  of  Canal.   See  Dimensions. 

Wild-cat  currency,  64,  72. 

Wilson,  Gen.  James  H.,  137;  plan 
for  enlarging  canal,  135  et  seq. 

Winter  navigation  of  I.  &  M.,  22. 

Winter  rates.  See  Freight  rates, 
Winter. 

Wisconsin  River,  154. 

Wisner,  Geo.  Y.,  Estimate  of 
channel  improvements,  140. 

Woodward,  A.  B.,  favors  waterway 
from  St.  Lawrence  to  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  6. 

Wool  shipped,  1842-47,  99. 

Wright,  Benjamin,  engineer.  Re- 
port, 40. 

Wright,   John,    &   Co.,   and   canal 


Wright,  Silas,  130. 

Young,  Hon.  R.  M.,  46,  47,  48. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FA 


